(GR) People V Jamero (1968) PDF

2/23/13
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
[ G.R. No. L-19852, July 29, 1968 ]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.
MANSUETO JAMERO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, MANSUETO
JAMERO, RODRIGO HONORICO LOPEZ, JULIAN PABICON AND
JOEL BINGCANG, DEFENDANTS ON REVIEW.
DECISION
ANGELES, J.:
On appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance Of Negros Occidental in
its Criminal Case 6527, entitled "People of the Philippines versus Mansueto Jamero,
Julian Pabicon, Rodrigo Honorio Lo
pez & Rudy Lopez, Joel Bingcang, Florentino
Vasquez, Jr. @ Junior Vasquez, Jesus Vasquez @ Susing Vasquez, Pedro Arana,
Oscar Ramirez, John Doe and Richard Doe", wherein accused Mansueto Jamero,
Julian Pabicon, Rodrigo Honorio Lopez @ Rudy Lopez and Joel Bingcang were found
guilty of the crime of murder for the killing of Ernesto Piccio, in the night of July 19,
1958, and were sentenced to death; their co-accused, Jesus Vasquez @ Susing
Vas
quez, Florentino Vasquez, Jr. @ Junior Vasquez, Pedro Arana and Oscar
Ramirez were acquitted on reasonable doubt.
Our own examination of the record revealed the follow
ing broad outlines of the
facts of the case which appear to be indubitable. The details shall be discussed as
We review the evidence.
The victim, Ernesto Piccio, was a law practitioner and politician in the province of
Negros Occidental dur
ing his lifetime. At the time of his death in 1958, he was
incumbent councilor in the municipality of Sagay, said province, having been elected
to the position in the local election of 1955. He had a residence at Nueva St.,
Bacolod City, and maintained a law office in the South
ern Motors Building, also in
Bacolod City.
At about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon of July 19, 1958, Ernesto Piccio left his
residence in Bacolod City, bound for Sagay, Negros Occidental. He rode in his jeep
which was loaded with cans of paint, plants, and some small boxes. That was the
last time that his wife Anita Cuaycong, saw Ernesto Piccio alive, for on the following
day, it was the lifeless body of her husband that was taken back to Bacolod City; it
was found by an old woman lying inside a sugarcane field at Barrio Tinampaan,
Cadiz, Negros Occidental, some meters from the right shoulder of the road leading
to Sagay.
Two days after the discovery of the body of Ernesto Piccio, or on July 22, 1958, to
be precise, it was autop
s ied by Major Antonio U. Briones of the Medico-Legal
Branch, Philippine Constabulary. His findings and re
marks, as appear from his
necropsy report dated July 24, 1958, were as follows:
elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/18582
1/43
2/23/13
"II. POSTMORTEM FINDINGS:

Multiple stab wounds as follows:
1.
Stab wound, measuring 1.8 cm. on the inner canthus of the

right eye entering the soft tissues without injuring the eyeball
and entering the spheno-maxillary fissure of the lower orbital
surface and is directed in
ward, downward and slightly toward the
right to a depth of 4.8 cm. reaching the base of the maxillary
antrum without puncturing it.
2.
A stab wound, 2.7 cm. in length and with a depth of 2.6 cm. si
tuated midway between the center of the bridge of the nose and
the inner canthus of the right eye, directed downward and
slightly lateral to the right.
3.
Stab wound, 1.7 cm. in length and with a depth of 2.5 cm. on
the inner canthus of the left eye, directed inward and downward.
4.
A stab wound, 1.7 cm. in length on the lower palpebral folds of

the left eye directed inward and downward puncturing the eyeball
and chipping off a piece of bone of the lower brim of the socket
to a depth of 2.5 cm.
5.
A stab wound, 3 cm. in length run

ning obliquely across the nose
cut
t ing off the ligament and destroy
ing the nasal septum.
6.
A small stab wound, 0.7 cm. invol

ving the whole thickness of the
soft tissue on the upper temporal region and chipping off
superfi
cially a piece of bone fragment about 1.5 cm. in diameter.
7.
A stab wound, 1.6 cm. in length on the left lower temporal

region about 2.4 cm. posterior to the la
t eral end of the left
eyebrow, directed inward to a depth of about 3.9 cm. without
entering the skull.
8.
A stab wound, 1.7 cm. in length, on the lower temporal region

posterior to the entrance of wound No. 7, and about 4.6 cm.
anterior to the left auricle, penetrating the skull and dura sheath,
injuring the brain tissue with a moderate amount of hemorrhage
on the surface of the temporal lobe of the brain.
9.
A stab wound, on the interior

tical in disposition, directed
posteriorward penetrating the
thorasic cavity and puncturing
right lung to about 1.0 cm.
approxi
mately 7 cm.
aspect of the right shoulder ver

inwards the left and slightly
2nd intercostal space, entering
the surface of the apex of the
Total depth of this wound was
2/43
2/23/13
10.
A slight subaponeurotic contusion about 4 x 5 cm. on the

occipital region.
11.
Subdural and meaningeal hemorrhage over an area about 3 x 6

cm. on the frontal aspect of both hemisphere with an area of
brain laceration about 2 x. 1 cm. superimposed on this sites.
Hemorrhage in the falxcerebri and interhemispheric fissure was
also found.
REMARKS:
The various multiple stab wounds were inflicted antemortem causing profuse
hemorrhage. They must have been due to a long, sharp pointed and bladed
weapon inflicted with a vary
ing degree of force from moderate to heavy.
The subaponeurotic contusion at the back of the head must have been due to a
blunt force with a wide striking surface and the contrecoup lesions in the frontal
aspect of both hemispheres must have been the result of the traumatic force
applied with a moderate to heavy degree at the back of the head.
Stab wound No. 4 penetrated the eyeball with the extrusion of the aqueous and
vitreous humor.
The multiple stab wounds were sutured from previous examination.
The length of the wound in the right shoulder was extended and mo
dified by
suturing, hence its actual length could not be measured defi
nitely.
There were multiple abrasive marks all over the face more on the right side, and
mostly in horizontal dispo
s ition all postmortem in nature. Minor post mortam
scratches were also noted in the left chest and external aspect of the left arm.
Multiple postmoetem abrasive marks were found in the palm and dorsum of the left
hand. A postmortem scratch was noted on the dorsal aspect of the lower third
right hand, measuring 4 x 2 cm. Another postmortem abrasion 0.4 x 0.3 cm was
noted on the left knee.
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Brain concussion, intracanial he
morrhage and shock, secondary to pro
fuse
hemorrhage."
After months of investigation, a Special Prosecutor from the Department of Justice
filed on May 9, 1959, an Information for Murder In the Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental against the accused aforementioned including Inocencio Retirado,
to wit:
"The undersigned Special Prosecu
t or accuses MANSUETO JAMERO, JULIAN PASION,
JOEL BINGCANG, JESUS VASQUEZ @ Susing Vasquez, FLORENTINO VASQUEZ, Jr.
3/43
2/23/13
& Junior Vasquez, RODRIGO HONORIO LOPEZ @ Rudy Lopez, OSCAR RAMIREZ,
PEDRO ARANA, INOCENCIO RETIRADO, JOHN DOE and RICHARD DOE, of the crime
of Murder committed as follows:
"That on or about the 19th day of July, 1958, in the Municipality of Cadiz, province
of Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and
mutually helping each other with evident premeditation end treachery, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously with intent to kill, assault, attack and stab
with blunt instruments and sharp pointed weapons one ERNESTO PICCIO on
different parts of his body, thereby inflicting upon him mortal wounds which caused
his death immediately thereafter.
"That there are present in the commission of the crime, the following aggravating
circumstances, to wit.
1. Nighttime which was purposely sought by the accused to facilitate its
commission and to avoid being identi
fied;
2. Use of superior strength - in that all the accused, some of whom were armed
with blunt instruments and pointed wea
pons, jointly took part in the commission of
the crime against the victim who was then unarmed;
"3. Use of motor vehicle - in that the accused purposely rode with the victim with
them deliberate intent to facilitate the commission of the crime;
4. Uninhabited place - in that the ac
cused deliberately committed the crime in an
uninhabited place to insure the com
mission thereof and for the purpose of
impunity;
5. Graft and trickery was employed; and
6. Cruelty - in that the wrong done in the commission of the crime was delibe
rately
augmented by extricating the right eye of the victim which was not necessary for
its commission.
"CONTRARY TO LAW."
On May 13, 1959, the prosecution filed a motion for the discharge of accused
Inocencio Retirado from the Information so that he could be utilized as state
witness. To the said motion, the different counsels for all the remaining accused
(except John Doe and Richard Doe), filed their oppositions. Hearing was had on
the said motion and the oppositions thereto on May 18, 1959, after which the
motion was granted by the court a quo in its order bear
ing the same date. The
dispositive part of that order reads:
"WHEREFORE, finding the motion of Special Prosecutor Enrique A. Agana for the
discharge of Innocencio Retirado to be utilized as a State witness to be well
4/43
2/23/13
founded, the same is hereby granted and the accused, Inocencio Retirado, is
hereby ordered discharged. So ordered."
This order precipitated the filing a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction
with this Court by remaining accused on the issue as to whether or not accused
Inocencio Retirado, who had allegedly been con
victed for malicious mischief, could
be discharged as state witness. The said petition, G. R. No. L-15552 (Mansueto
Jamero, et al., vs. Hon. Jose F. Fernandez, etc., et al.), however, was dismissed by
this Court for lack of merit in its Resolution of June 25, 1959. Meanwhile, the
remaining accused (except John Doe and Richard Doe) were arraigned on May 23,
1959. All pleaded "not guilty" to the charge for murder. Thereafter, they stood
trial.
The witnesses who testified for the People at the trial were: (1) Antonio U. Briones
physician and chief, Medico-Legal Section, PC; (2) Inocencio Retirado, a buy and sell
broker in Fabrica, Sagay, Negros Occidental, who was originally included in the
Information but later dis
charged upon motion of the prosecution to become State
witness; (3) Nepomuceno Fabros, a Notary Public in Sagay, Negros Occidental; (4)
Juan de la Pea, a policemen in Victorias, Negros Occidental; (5) Arsenio Gapana,
businessman in Lagasan, Cadiz, Negros Occidental; (6) Pedro Velasco, Jr., a
student, Bacolod City; (7) Pedro Galon, PC, San Carlos, Negros Occidental; (8)
Teodulo Galo, employee, Malabon, Rizal (formerly security guard, Lopez Sugar
Central in Sagay, Negros Occidental); (9) Anita Cuayong Vda. de Piccio, widow of
the victim Ernesto Piccio; (10) Emilia Villaluna attendant to Mrs. Piccio; (11)
Anunciacion Placencia, housekeeper, Hacienda Canaan, Cadiz, Negros Occidenta;
(12) Gorgonio Drillon, J.P. Sagay, Negros Oc
cidental; (14) Arturo Piccio, brother of
the victim(15) Fernando Canlas, merchant, Sagay, Negros Occidental; (16) Rodolfo
Monillo, employee, Southern Motors Co., Bacolod City; (17) Manuel Soriano, lawyer,
Iloilo City; (18)Quen
t in Katalbas, mayor, Sagay, Negros Occidental; (19) Ino
cencio
Adrias, mayor, Siniloan, Laguna (formerly CIS agent); (20) Crispin Garcia, captain,
PC: (21) Leonardo No-ot, PAL employee, Bacolod City; and (23) Emilio Loga,
farmer, Sagay, Negros Occidental. Stripped of unessen
t ial details, they testified as
follows:
Witness Teodulo Galo declared that in 1949, he was a security guard at the Lopez
Sugar Central Sagay, Negros Occidental, the manager of the company, Eduar
do
Lopez, called down Rodrigo Honorio Lopez (one of herein accused) to explain why
he manhandled Arturo Piccio, bro
t her of the victim Ernesto Piccio, daring the
absence of the said manager. Rodrigo Honorio Lopez (Rudy Lopez, for short), was
castigated and almost knelt before Arturo Pic
cio as he apologized to him. Attorney
Ernesto Piccio learned about the manhandling of his brother; and the following day,
he came to the Lopez Sugar Central hunting for Rudy Lopez. Atty. Ernesto Piccio
was only pacified upon promise of the Manager that he would oast Rudy Lopez
from his job.
Witness Nepomuceno Fabros testified that in the local elections of 1955, the
5/43
2/23/13
Nacionalista Party in Sagay, Negros Occidental was divided into three (3) factions,
namely the Quentin Katalbas, Amalio Cuevas, and the Jesus Vasquez political
aggrupations. In the last faction, ac
cused Jesus Vasquez was candidate for Mayor,
and in his ticket were accused Rodrigo Honorio Lopez who ran for vice Mayor, and
the accused Oscar Florentino Vas quez, Jr., and Pedro Arana who all ran for
councilor. The witness, along with accused Julian Pabicon, Mansueto Jamero and
Jose Bingcang, rallied behind that faction of Jesus Vasquez. The deceased Ernesto
Piccio was a candi
date for councilor of the Liberal Party in that election, but his
name was also carried as a guest candidate of the Nacionalista Party in the tickets
of the factions headed by Quentin Katalbas and Amalio Cuevas. Witness acted as
legal adviser to the faction headed by accused Jesus Vasquez appearing in its
behalf in inclusion and exclusion, proceedings in Sagay, Negros Occidental, and
helping in all matters that needed legal advice, for he was a law graduate.
During that political campaign, according to witness Teodulo Galo, the rivalry
between the faction headed by accused Jesus Vasquez and the faction of Quentin
Katalbas and the deceased Ernesto Piccio, became so bitter that in their speeches,
accused Rudy Lopez, Mansueto Jamero and Joel Bingcang hurled personal insults at
Ernesto Piccio, calling him "Spaniard, pig", while the deceased in his speeches
referred to accused Rudy Lopez as "a waste matter of the Lopezes", and called the
others "gago" (dumb). At one instance in that campaign, the deceased and the
witness, who were together on their way from Bacolod City to Sagay, were stalled
on the way because accused Lopez, together with accused Jamero and Bingcang
had parked their truck in the middle of the road and did not move aside until Atty.
Piccio bluntly addressed accused Lopez, "what is this, pare?" On another occasion,
Piccio was riding home to Sagay when, upon passing a store in front of the Lopez
Su
gar Central, accused Lopez and Jamero shouted at him, "kastila, pig". Piccio
stopped and demanded an explana
t ion of the insult and accused Lopez met him
with a dare, "so what". That incident would have resulted in fishti
cuffs had others
not intervened.
On election day, as related by the same witness, the deceased went to the precinct
located at the Eusebio Memorial School and chanced to meet there the accused
Lopez, Jamero and Pabicon. Lopez addressed Piccio to look inside and see the
many "zeros" he made in that precinct, to which remark Piccio countered that it did
not matter, for in Sagay, they will let him (Lopez) "eat mud" also. These remarks
precipitated a discussion which developed into a near-fight. They were pacified,
nevertheless, by a policeman nearby.
Witness Nepomuceno Fabros narrated further that in that local election, accused
Jesus Vasquez lost to Quentin Katalbas in the mayoralty race. The victim, Ernesto
Pic
cio came out as No.1 councilor, although accused Rudy Lopez and Oscar Ramirez
also won as vice mayor and coun
cilor, respectively. A victory ball was held in
January of the following year in honor of governor-elect Valeriano Gatuslao, whom
not only the accused in this case but also the victim, Ernesto Piccio had supported
in that local election. There was a heated altercation that developed between the
6/43
2/23/13
late Atty. Piccio and accused Oscar Ramirez in that victory ball; and accused Rudy
Lopez, seeing that his political ally was out-smarted in the altercation, intervened to
such an extent that his bodyguards, one of whom was accused Mansueto Jamero,
and the bodyguard of Atty. Piccio, Constancio Tan, soon alerted in preparation for
the defense of their respective masters. There were Constabulary soldiers and
members of Sagay Police Department around, however, who pacified the
protagonists and prevented the near-shooting. Nevertheless, sometime thereafter,
Constancio Tan was manhandled by Rudy Lopez, Mansueto Jamero and Sotero
Mosqueda, who inflicted upon the former, bodily harm resulting in the filing of a
physical injury case against them. Accused Rudy Lopez and his group also filed a
counter-charge against Constancio Tan as a result of that incident, but both cases
were later dismissed. This testimony of Fabros regarding the incident that victory
ball was substantially corroborated in by witness Teodulo Gala who declared that he
remembered accused Oscar Ramirez and the late Atty. Piccio had a discussion then;
that Rudy Lopez approached and the bodyguard of Atty. Piccio, Constancio Tan
also approached; that a short time later, accused Rudy Lopez and Mansueto
Jamero, along with other security guards of the Lopez Central were inflicting fist
blows upon Constancio Tan; and that they were all arrested after that and brought
to the municipal building.
Fabros also mentioned a case for physical injuries and another one for slander filed
against the accused Oscar Ramirez by Hernani Serafin and by Delia Lamela in the
Justice of the Peace Court of Sagay. Atty. Piccio inter
vened in these cases for the
complainants. Still another case was filed by Letty Balison for acts of lascivious
ness
(abuse of honor) against accused Rudy Lopez who, according to witness Fabros,
enlisted his help. He (Fabros) and accused Mansueto Jamero then took the
complainant, Letty Balison, to Bacolod City where she was fixed by accused Rudy
Lopez by giving her cash and other considerations, behind the back of Atty. Piccio
who had instigated the filing of the case.
The same witness declared further that in the later part of 1957, accused Rudy
Lopez was summarily dismissed by the Lopez Sugar Central at Sagay on petition of
the Sagay Sugar Planters Association. Aside from the fact that Atty. Piccio was a
member of the Board of Di
rectors of that association, there were additional rea
s ons
for accused Rudy Lopez and Mansueto Jamero to sus
pect that Atty. Piccio had
something to do with their dismissal from the Central Lopez, for in the resulting
labor case subsequently initiated by the more than 100 laborers of the company
who were dismissed with accused Rudy Lopez and Mansueto Jamero, Atty. Piccio
stood by the Company against the interests of the laborers; and when violence
erupted during one of the hearings of that labor case wherein one Elias Lirio
sustained physical in
juries, Atty. Piccio instigated the filing of the corresponding
criminal complaint in the fiscal's office against accused Rudy Lopez and his
followers.
Manuel O. Soriano, a lawyer of the Lopez Sugar Cen
t ral, confirmed the testimony of
Fabros that accused Rudy Lopez was dismissed by the Company upon complaint,
7/43
2/23/13
not only of the Board of Directors of the Sagay Sugar Planters Association of which
the late Atty. Piccio was a member, but also of other planters who were not
members of that association. He declared that as a result of that dismissal,
accused Rudy Lopez lost a yearly income of P12, 400.00 representing a monthly
salary of P200.00 as a warehouseman in the Central and the amount of about P10,
000.00 annually derived by him as a contractor in charge of the "pakyaw" for
hauling sugar.
Deprived of that means of livelihood, accused Rudy Lopez and his group, according
to Fabros, conceived of a plan by which they could assume the mayorship of
Sagay. The plan was to file a trumped-up administrative complaint against Mayor
Quentin Katalbas and work for his suspension. Part of that conceived plot was the
proposed appointment of accused Jesus Vasquez to the position of Chief of Po
lice
of Sagay as soon as accused Rudy Lopez shall have wrested the position of Mayor
from Katalbas. The existence of such a plan was, likewise, testified to by witness
Ine
cencio Retirado who said that in connection therewith, he was summoned to the
house of Teodoro Lopez in Bacolod City by accused Rudy Lopez thru a person
named Tiroc. In said house on that: occasion, he met accused Rudy Lopez, Junior
Vasquez, Pabicon and Jamero, along with other people.
Fabros was there,
preparing the affidavits of witnesses to be used in substantiating the trumped-up
administrative, charge against Mayor Katalbas. He (Retirado) and two others were
later made to sign those affidavits. That scheme failed, however, according to
Fabros, because the late Atty. Piccio interceded in behalf of Mayor Katalbas and
made the necessary representations with the Provincial Governor of Negros
Occidental.
Fabros also recalled that in the month of February, 1958, he dropped at the house
of Jesus Vasquez in Bacolod City where he saw accused Rudy Lopez, Junior
Vasquez, Man
s ueto Jamero, Julian Pabicon and Jesus Vasquez in a sort of meeting
or conference. He did not consider seriously then what he heard during that
meeting; but later he considered significant, because he remembered that while
there he heard Junior Vasquez said, "if Piccio is alive, we can not do anything, we
had better kill him." That statement was addressed to accused Jesus Vasquez,
Man
s ueto Jamero, Julian Pabicon and Rudy Lopez; and it was the latter who replied:
"just take it easy, because we are not yet the king of the Provincial Jail." He heard
Jesus Vasquez comment: "Just take it easy boys." That meeting was followed by
another occasion in March, 1958, where he met the same group of Rudy Lopez,
Junior Vasquez, Mansueto Jamero, Julian Pabicon and Jesus Vasquez in the house
of the latter. There was talk there regarding the political activities of the group and
in those conversations, he heard them ex
pressing words of anger against Atty.
Piccio. Rudy Lopez said: "that this Atty. Piccio is only our bar
rier as in all troubles
we have had, he always stands and identifies himself with the opposite side." Jesus
'Vasquez' comment then was to the effect that he con
s idered Atty. Piccio a smart
guy and "we must do some
t hing about it." To that comment, Junior Vasquez ans
wered: "Just tell us what to do." And accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon
said that they were just waiting for his words. There was still another meeting in
8/43
2/23/13
April by the same group in the house of Jesus Vasquez, where there was talk
against Atty. Piccio in ordinary conversation. Accused Rudy Lopez was heard to
comment that the late Atty. Piccio was always the stumbling block in their political
activities.
State witness Inocencio Retirado declared that there were at least five (5) occasions
wherein state
ments regarding the plan to kill Atty. Piccio were made by the accused
in his presence. Thus, he testi
fied that on the occasion when he was called to the
house of Teodoro Lopez to sign the affidavit prepared by Fabros, he heard the
conversation between Junior Vasquez and Rudy Lopez in the presence of Pabicon,
Jamero, Tiroc, Fabros, Padernal and the two sons of Teodoro Lopez, Teddy, and
Toto. Substantially, Junior Vasquez said: "that if they can not have Mayor Katal
bas
suspended, there is a more powerful man in Sagay in the person of Atty. Piccio who
always frustrates whatever things they do in Sagay"; and in effect, the answer of
Rudy Lopez was: "Since we cannot do anything, it is necessary to liquidate one of
them, and the first one we are going to liquidate is Atty. Piccio, so that there will be
no more powerful man in Sagay."
Then one afternoon in the month of April, 1958, accused Oscar Ramirez and Pedro
Arana told this witness that they would go to the house of Jesus Vasquez the
following morning. He went with them as they told him and had lunch in the house
of Jesus Vasquez. In the evening of that same day, he was feted in a night club at
the Shopping Center owned and operated by the Vas
quez brothers. He dined and
drank at the place. Accused Junior Vasquez, Mansueto Jamero, Julian Pabicon,
Rudy Lopez and Jesus Vasquez, were all there, although the last two left ahead
before 2:00 a. m. It was at about that time, when the customers of the nightclub
were gone, that Retirado sat at a table with accused Junior Vasquez, Mansueto
Jamero, and Julian Pabicon. As they drank, Junior Vasquez asked: "When are we
going to do this? Who among you will volunteer?" It was then that accused
Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabi
con voiced their willingness to do the job provided
their respective families would be supported; and Ju
nior Vasquez gave them
assurance: "It is arranged if that is your problem, go ahead, it is alright."
The same group of Jesus Vasquez, Junior Vasquez, Julian Pabicon, Mansueto
Jamero, Oscar Ramirez, Pedro Arana, Rudy Lopez and Retirado met in the months
of May and June in the same house of Jesus Vasquez. In these meetings, the plan
to kill Atty. Piccio was discussed; and as usual, there were talks about politics and
expressions of anger and hatred against Atty. Piccio. Invariably repeated also in
said meetings were the assurances that the families of accused Mansueto Jamero
and Julian Pabicon would be taken care of by the Vasquez brothers should they be
discovered.
Meetings were more frequent in the month of July, 1958. At that accused Rudy
Lopez had already been appointed warden of the Provincial Jail of Negros
Occidental. According to witness Fabros, a meeting was held in the house of Jesus
Vasquez in the second week of that month where accused Rudy Lopez made the
9/43
2/23/13
following announcement: "Are you now ready? Now that I am the warden of the
Provincial Jail, I think we can carry out our plans." Accused Junior Vasquez together
with accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon simul
t aneously replied: "Just
decide when."
Continuing his testimony, witness Inocencio Re
t irado declared that there was
another meeting held in the second week of July, 1958, in the house of Jesus
Vasquez in front of the Provincial Jail. Those present in that meeting were he and
accused Jesus Vas
quez, Junior Vasquez, Pedro Arna, Oscar Ramires, Ju
lian Pabicon,
Mansueto Jamero, and Rudy Lopez. Before the meeting broke up, accused Rudy
Lopez instructed accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon, along with the
witness to report again at the house of Jesus Vas
quez for final briefing in the
morning of July 19, 1958. In the afternoon of July 18, 1958, accused Ped
ro Arana
(Tatay Pandoy to the witness) also told Reti
redo to go to the house of accused
Jesus Vasquez the following morning. Pedro Arana was with accused Oscar
Ramires at the time.
In the morning of July 19, 1958, at about 10:00 of 11:00 o'clock, accused Pedro
Arana and Oscar Ramirez, together with Retirado, arrived at the house of Jesus
Vasquez, Julian Pabicon, Mansueto Jalero and Rudy Lopez. About ten (10) minutes
later, accused Joel Bingcang also appeared at the house. He addressed accused
Rudy Lopez: "I was sent hereby my employer." Lopez and Bingcang re
t ired to a
farther place wherein they engaged in conver
s ation not heard by the others for
about five minutes. He left the house after that conversation; but before leaving,
he uttered: "I am leaving now, I am going to wait in that place at Tinampaan." After
the departure of Joel Bingcang, accused Rudy Lopez again reiterated his idea that
they can not do anything in Sagay insofar as politics is concerned unless they kill
Atty. Piccio. There was unanimous agreement among those present as to the
idea. Accused Junior Vasquez again gave the assurance of financial assistance to
the families of the ap
pointed hatchetmen. He even remarked: "It is harder to kill a
chicken than to kill him." Accused Rudy Lopez informed the group then that at
about 5:00 o'clock that afternoon, Atty. Piccio will be going home to Sagay. He
instructed accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon to wait at the place of
Southern Motors Building where Atty. Piccio would start, while Retirado was advised
to wait at the place of Ramos Machine Shop where Atty. Pic
cio would pass. From
these assigned places, the three would hitch for a ride with Atty. Piccio to Sagay.
Definite instructions were given to use a hunting knife or any other weapon which
does not explode in killing Atty. Piccio so that the people in the nearby house may
not hear; and to use their revolvers only should Atty. Piccio put up a fight, for the
latter had a .38 caliber pistol. They were made to understand that after the
mission shall have been accomplished, the body of Atty. Piccio would be dumped in
the sugar cane fields and his jeep taken to Pandanan where it would be abandoned.
At this juncture, witness manifested that he would not participate in the actual
killing, but accused Junior Vasquez warned him that since he had been present in
planning the killing from the very beginning, he would be the one to be killed if he
would not agree. Retirado was consoled by accused Pedro Arena who promised
10/43
2/23/13
that they would take care of him as they would follow them in another car; and
was, therefore, prevailed upon to go.
According to witness Emilia Villaluna, attendant in the Piccio home, somebody called
by phone at about .5:30 o'clock in the afternoon of that day, July 19,1958. He was
riding in his jeep which was loaded with cans of paint, some plants and small boxes.
Continuing his testimony, Retirado declared that in the afternoon of that day, he
waited at the Ramos Machine Shop as previously agreed upon in their morning
conference. When he saw Atty. Piccio's jeep coming near, he stopped him. He
requested, and was allowed, to take a ride with him. Accused Mansueto Jamero
and Julian Pabicon were already there; Jamero was seated in the front seat, beside
Atty. Piccio who was driving; Pabicon was seated at the back, just behind Atty.
Piccio. Retirado also took his seat at the back, behind Jamero. At Ginhalaran, Atty.
Piccio stopped his jeep and got down to inquire from a nearby flower pot
manufacturer as to the price of a flower pot. That was the precise time that
accused Julian Pabicon pushed aside the flower pots loaded in the jeep from the
place where the jack (Exh. B) and a tire wrench (Exh. C) were. Pabicon placed the
objects near him and made a motion to Retirado to use one of them. That was
also the time, while the jeep was parked at Ginharalan that the car supposed to
follow them, passed by and signalled that they were going ahead.
From Ginhalaran, Piccio drove his jeep with his three chance-passengers towards
Sagay. He made another short stop at the outskirt of Silay and had a short
conversation with the driver of a pick-up truck. This pick-up truck appears to be
the same pick-up ridden by Pedro Velasco, Jr., who testified that he saw Atty. Piccio
with three other men in his jeep at Silay in the afternoon of July 19, 1958, as he
(Piccio) talked with their driver. Said witness, a 12-year old student, declared that
he recognized the men with Atty. Piccio at the time, but he failed to identify said
men from among the people in the court-room where all the accused were present
after two attempts he made by walking around the courtroom.
Atty. Piccio made a third stop on their way to Sagay at the town of Victorias. Here,
he talked with a local policeman and inquired about the whereabouts of his friend,
Sgt. de la Pea. He was corroborated on this point by the testimony of Patrolman
Juan deIa Pea then; and that he told him that he could be found further down the
way.
Retirado failed to notice the car that was supposed to follow them at Crossing
Bombahan where it was agreed it would park and flash some signals with its lights,
i. e., if its lights were bright, they would mean signs of danger and they should not
proceed with the killing of Atty. Piccio, and in the absence of said lights, the un
derstanding was that the plan to liquidate him should be carried on. At some point
after Crossing Bombahan, how
ever, Retirado noticed the car already following
them, its "lights being put out and put on again."
At some distance from Km. Post 64 at Tinampaan, Cadiz, Negros Occidental,
11/43
2/23/13
accused Mansueto Jamero re

quested Atty. Piccio to stop the jeep because he
wanted to urinate. He reiterated his request when they were just a few meters
from a big tree on the side of the road. Atty. Piccio stopped the jeep and accused
Jamero got down. He did not leave the jeep however; one of his feet re
mained on
the running board. At that precise time, ac
cused Joel Bingcang appeared from
behind the big tree. Upon seeing him, Atty. Piccio engaged him conversa
t ion and
asked: "Why are you here?" Bingcang answered: "I a waiting for a bus." Atty.
'Piccio pressed his ques
t ion: "Why are you here?" And Bingcang explained that he
was there to visit a relative. While thus engaged in conversation, accused Julian
Pabicon lifted the jack (Exh. B) and pounded it upon Atty. Piccio, hitting him at the
back portion of the head. Atty. Piccio stopped for
ward, swayed to the right, then
to the left, in a stag
gering position; and at that juncture, accused Jamero stabbed
him three or two times. He did not see clearly whether Jamero stabbed Atty. Piccio
on the right side, on the arm or shoulder, for he was terrified. He imme
diately fled
from the place. He ran and hid in the near
by coconut grove and sugarcane fields
some two hundred (200) meters from the place where his companions were. He
remained in hiding there for sometime until he heard the sound of a coming
vehicle. With the fear that his companions might now be after his own life, Retirado
tried to ascertain first whether or not the coming ve
hicle was Atty. Piccio's jeep;
and only after he had as
s ured himself by the presence of lights at the top of the
vehicle that it was not the one but a passenger truck, did he come out of his hiding
place to stop it. He board
ed the bus and got off at Fabrica, reaching his house at
about 3:00 o'clock in the morning. By his own estimate, that incident near the big
tree at Tinampaan must have occurred between 7:00 to 8:00 o'clock in the
evening.
Another witness, Arsenio Gepana declared that at about that time between 7:00 to
8:00 in the evening of July 19, 1958, while he was seated on a bench by the right
side of the road going to Sagay near the bridge at Lagas-an, Cadiz, Negros
Occidental, he noted an on-coming jeep swerve to the side of the road where he
was; and he recognized it to be the jeep of Atty. Piccio; he figured that Atty. Piccio
must be drunk. It came so close to him that it would have crushed his feet had he
not moved them side on time. There was a passenger bus on the op
posite side of
the road at the time which stopped to unload some passengers, and there was
another cargo truck coming from the same direction opposite that of Atty. Piccios
jeep, and the latter had to stop for a moment to give way to the on coming
vehicle. As the jeep made that brief stop in front of him Gepana was able to
ascertain that it was not Atty. Piccio but accused Josel Bingcang who was driving,
with accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon with him. After that brief stop
the jeep proceeded on its way and turned left towards Pandanan upon reaching the
crossing nearby. Arsenio Gepana said he was sure it was the jeep of Atty. Piccio he
saw that evening because he had seen the jeep many times before.
Anunciacion Placencia, a 51-year old woman from Sitio Canaan, Cadiz, Negros
Occidental, testified that on July 23, 1958, at about 9:00 oclock in the morning,
she and a companion Teresita, were on their way to Crossing, Maingoy, in the same
12/43
2/23/13
municipality when she noted stains of blood on the roadside near a big tree at
Tinampaan. She looked around and saw not far from the place, the lifeless body of
a man lying face dowward inside the nearby sugarcane field on the right side of the
road going north. She and Teresita hurriedly left the place upon peeing the body
and continued their way to Crossing Maningoy. They informed the policeman there
about their discovery, and the said policeman took them along with him in going
back to the place at Tinampaan. Upon seeing the body, the policeman recognized it
to be that of Atty. Piccio.
A photographer from the place, Carlos Serafin, was then engaged to take pictures
of the dead man and the said photographer later identified two of the pictures
(Exh. F and F-I) he had taken of the late Atty. Piccio on that occasion. Arturo
Piccio, brother of the victim, also identified said pictures to be those of his brother.
He likewise identified a jacket (Exh. H), a pair of pants (Exh. I), a polo shirt (Exh. J)
and a belt (Exh. K) to be those worn by Atty. Piccio in the afternoon of July 19,
1958, when he saw his remains loaded in a truck at Silay City.
The same day, July 20, 1958, the jeep of Atty. Pic
cio was found abandoned a few
meters from the shoulder of the road between Barrios Lagas-an and Tiglawigan,
Cadiz, Negros Occidental. The same photographer who took the pictures of the
body of Atty. Piccio at Barrio Tinampaan, also took several pictures of the said jeep
on that day, and he later identified exhibits 4-PJL 5-PJL, 6- PJL and 7-PJL to be the
pictures of the jeep he had taken. The PC soldier who was assigned to guard the
jeep at the place where it was discovered, also identified Exh. 5-PJL as a picture of
the Jeep he guarded on that day.
Dr. Antonio Briones testified that he autopsied the body of Atty. Ernesto Piccio at a
funeral parlor in Bacolod City on July 22, 1958. He declared that the stab wounds
he described on Items Nos. 1 to 9 of his necropsy report (Exh. A) were caused by
a sharp pointed instrument. Item No. 10 must have been caused by a blunt object
whose striking surface was applied with such force that caused the countrecoup
lesion in the frontal aspect; that Item No. 11 was the injury in the brain caused by
the impact or the occipital region which cause concussions and intracranial
hemorrhage. Death, according to him, ensued due to shock, secondary to
hemorrhage. He said, however, that the multiple stab wounds he had earlier
described were inflicted ante-mortem.
Inocencio Retirado declared further that the day immediately following the night of
the incident in Tinam
paan, he had thought of giving up himself to the authority.
But he desired to surrendered to agents coming from Manila and not to the
authorities in Negros, because he entertained fears that, should he surrender to
them, his companions in the commission of the crime may kidnap him while
detained in the province.
He testified that he had the feeling all along that his
companions might do him harm, but he admitted that although they met several
times after the death of Atty. Piccio in cockpits and other places, they never
discussed with him about the killing of the victim, much less inflicted any harm upon
13/43
2/23/13
his per
s on. He said that he had some difficulty in getting in touch with the agents
from Manila assigned to investigate the case end was able to see the CIS agents
only in February, 1959, in Hacienda Magdalena. Thereafter, he was placed in
protective custody of the PC at Camp Crame, Quezon City. He admitted further
that since them, he had been receiving a P90-monthly allowance from the PC who
were also kind enough to allow him to leave the Camp and engage in the buying
and selling of hogs, which enabled him to sustain his family consisting of his wife
and seven (7) children.
Patrolman Juan de la Pea declared further that at about 10:00 o'clock in the
morning of July 20, 1958, he heard the news that Atty. Piccio had died the night
before. That same day, he informed Sgt. de la Pea that he had seen Atty. Piccio
with three (3) men in his jeep as they passed by on the night of July 19, 1958. He
ad
mitted tho that he only revealed the identities and the names of Atty. Piccio's
companions five (5) days after the killing when CIS agent Adrias came to him and
investigated him.
Arsenio Gepaa also revealed that as early as August 9, 1958, he had been
investigated by the CIS agents. He was hiding in a coconut grove near his house
when they first came, for be did not want to get involved in the case. The agents,
however, were insistent and took his statement just the same which they later
asked him to sign. In that statement, he readily identified accused Joel Bingcang
and Mansueto Jamero as among those he saw inside the jeep of Atty. Piccio in the
evening of July 19, 1958, but he was not able to identify or give the name of
accused Julian Pabicon then because he forgot his name. He said that on
September 24, 1958, the CIS agents again asked him questions about the incident
and again he was made to sign the statement taken. At that time, he already
remembered the name of accused Julian Pabicon, but still, he did not mention his
name in his second af
fidavit because soon after, he signed his first affidavit, Julian
Pabicon accosted him and argued with him, trying to convince him to see the
Governor of the province on some important matter, that is why kept silent about
it in order to avoid further troubles. That, according to him, was the very same
reason why he did not mention the name of Julian Pabicon during the preliminary
inves
t igation. But after sometime, he realized that he should testify for the sake of
justice; and after he was given personal security, he identified accused Julian
Pabicon during the trial.
For their defenses, all the accused separately de
nied the truth of the testimony of
prosecution witness Inocencio Retirado to the effect that they held several
meetings during the period from February to July 1958, wherein they invariably
voiced their hatred for Atty. Piccio and plotted to eliminate him from the political
scene in Sagay by killing him; all claimed ignorance of the circumstances
surrounding the death of Atty. Piccio on the night of July 19, 1958. More
specifically, each of the accused explained his whereabouts on that parti
cular date.
Accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon offered a common alibi - they testified
14/43
2/23/13
that they were both in Manila during the period from July 15 to 23, 1958. They
maintained that they could not have been in Negros Occidental in the evening of
July 15, 1953, the day Atty. Piccio was allegedly killed in barrio Tinampaan, Cadiz,
Negros Occidental. Their testimonies in court described in detail their trip from
Bacolod City to Manila on July 15, 1958, their return trip from Manila to Negros
Occidental on July 23, 1958, and the various activities they had in Manila and its
suburbs during the intervening period. They were substantially corroborated in all
material details by the testimonies of their companions in that trip, namely: Asst.
Provincial Warden Severino Remo, and Provincial Guards Anastacio Caceres and
Ernesto Ocana who all testified in court. This is the they altogether told in court:
On July 14, 1958, at about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Asst. Provincial Warden
Severino Remo toge
t her with Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon (accused),
Anastacio Caceres, Ernesto Ocana and Panchito Guanzon, all provincial, guards of
Negros Occidental, escorted 27 insane prisoners, in compliance with the orders of
Governor Valeriano Gatuslao to transfer the said prisoners from the provincial jail
of Negros Occidental to the Psychopatic Hospital in Mandaluyong, Rizal. The
prisoners were first taken to the port of Pulupandan from Bacolod City in a truck.
They reached Pulupandan at about 6:00 o'clock that same afternoon.
At
Pulupandan, the 27 pri
s oners were taken on board the "SS El Cano" which took
them along with the Asst. warden and provincial guards escorting them in the early
morning of July 15, 1958, to the port of Iloilo which they reached at about 5:00
o'clock a.m. The "El Cano" then left the port of Iloilo around 4:00 o'clock in the
afternoon of the same with the insane prisoners and their escorts on board. It
arrived in Manila in the afternoon of July 16, 1958. The truck of the Psychopatic
Hospital (National Mental Hospital), the guards were expecting to be at the pier area
when they landed to ferry the prisoners to Mandalu
yong, Rizal, was not around
then, and Asst. Warden Remo had to fetch the same from Mandaluyong, leaving
accused Jamero and Pabicon, along with provincial guards Ocana, Caceres and
Guanzon behind to guard the prisoners. Remo did not find the truck of the
National Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong, however, for after he left the pier area the
said truck arrived and Jamero, Pabicon, Caceres, Ocana and Guanzon loaded the
insane prisoners on the truck without wanting for Remo anymore. They arrived at
the National Mental Hospital at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening where they found
Asst. warden Remo waiting for them. It took the guards several hours before they
were able to leave the place, for aside from the fact that the 27 insane prisoners
had to be individually interviewed by the admitting physicians of the hospital and
the provincial guards had to act as interpreters, one of the prisoners named
Cadangdang Jalando-on had a small child whom the hospital authorities refused to
admit. They were lucky they found a couple willing to take cus
t ody of the child in
the persons of spouses Francisco and Felicisima Dacumos. They left the National
Mental Hospital at about 3:00 oclock already in the early hours of July 17, 1958.
They proceeded to their board
ing house at the Clover building on Echague, Sta.
Cruz, Manila, in two taxis, reaching the place around 4:00 a.m., where they slept in
a corridor till morning after which they were given definite room assignments. Asst.
Warden Remo did not stay in the place, however, for he went to his boarding
15/43
2/23/13
house at 1620 Kansas Avenue, Manila.

After breakfast that morning, July 17, 1958, ac
cused Jamero and Pabicon, together
with Ocana and Cace
res went to the Philamlife Compound in Quezon City to make a
report of their arrival to Governor Valerians Gatuslao, who was then staying in the
residence of his brother Congressman Agustin Gatuslao at 62 South Maya, Quezon
City preparatory to his scheduled travel abroad.
Provincial Guard Panchito
Guanzon was left behind at Clover building to look for someone to buy his fighting
cock. Asst. Warden Remo was also at the Philamlife Com
pound that morning for
the purpose of reporting to the Governor, and he met Jamero, Pabicon, Caceres
and Ccana there. After reporting to the Governor, accused Jamero and Pabicon,
together with Ocana and Caceres left the place at about 10:00 o'clock that morning
and went to Polo, Bulacan, to deliver two (2) fighting cocks, the gift of accused
Rudy Lopez to Governor Gatuslao's in-law, Mayor Ignacio Santiago of said
municipality. They arrived at Polo around 11:00 am. They took lunch with Mayor
Santiago who also gave them some drinks. He, likewise, took along the said
provincial guards in his car and drove around the town with them. Jamero, Pabi
con, Caceres and Ocana left Polo that afternoon when it was already about 4:00 or
5:00 o'clock, reaching their boarding house at Clover around 6:00 o'clock.
In the morning of July 18, 1958, accused Pabicon, together with Caceres and Ocana
again left their board
ing house to see the Governor at Philamlife Compound. They
borrowed P10.00 each from the Governor, who later left in his car taking along with
him Caceres and Ocana; accused Pabicon was left behind because the car was
already full, and he had to return to their hoarding house alone. Jamero and
Guanzon also followed their companions to the Philamlife Compound that morning,
but they did not catch up with the group - Ocana and Cace
res had left with the
Governor in his car then, while Pabicon had gone home alone to the Clover
boarding house.
So, Jamero and Guanzon did not stay long at Philamlife
Compound and decided to go to Malacaan to visit Jamero's brother-in-law there,
after which they returned to their boarding house. Meanwhile, Pabicon found
himself alone in the boarding house upon his return from Philamlife Compound; he
went out and loitered around the place. Jamero and Guanzon were already there
when he returned later in the afternoon, and still later, Ocana and Caceres also
returned to the place after their trip to the PNB and other government offices in the
company of Governor Gatuslao. They all slept in their boarding house that evening
after supper.
The following day, July 19, 1958 Pabicon, Ocana and Caceres again went to see the
Governor at Philamlife Compound, arriving there between the hours of 8:00 and
9.00 in the morning. Jamero and Guanzon stayed behind at Clover and played
mahjong with their landlady, Mrs. Nar
cisa Vilches, and another student boarder. In
that particular occasion at Phil-Am Compound, Pabicon, Ocana and Caceres saw and
met Congressman Gatuslao and his wife, Governor Gatuslao and Mrs. Gatuslao,
Deputy Governor Agustin Segovia of Negros Occidental, Asst. Provincial Treasurer
Aniano Norboneta who was scheduled to leave the airport for Negros that
16/43
2/23/13
afternoon, while Pabicon, Ocana and Caceres walked the distance from Quiapo to
their board
ing house at Clover in Echague. They found Jamero and Guanzon still
there, for they stopped the mahjong game at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon.
And remembering that Pabicon, Ocana and Caceres had obtained a loan of P10.00
each from the Governor the day previous, Jamero and Guan
z on went to Phil-Am
Compound to borrow P10.00 each also. The Governor obliged, after which Jamero
and Guanzon returned to the Clover.
At about 7:00 or 8:00 o'clock in the evening of that day, Pabicon, Jamero, Ocana,
Caceres and Guanzon were in
vited to a party in Sta. Mesa, Manila, by a Visayan
student boarder at Clover. They went with some 20 other students boarding at
Clover, returning to the boarding house around 11:30. They tarried a while near
the Dencia Restaurant and played the pin ball machines. They met there Amado
Torres of the Bacolod Police Department, and they talked about their respective
missions. After Torres was gone, they slept at about 12:00 o'clock.
In the morning of Sunday, July 20, 1958, Pabicon, Ocana and Caceres attended
mass at Quiapo, while Jamero went to the Phil-Am Compound. Guanzon stayed at
the board
ing house. From Phil-Am Compound, Jamero proceeded to the North
Harbor to fix his ticket for the return trip to Neg
ros Occidental. Upon return to the
Clover from the church, Ocana and Caceres, likewise, went to the North harbor for
the same purpose.
Pabicon did the same sometime later. They had to make
arrangement with the steamship company be
cause the return tickets they secured
in Negros Occidental before their departure for Manila were on the steamship "Jolo"
which was scheduled to leave the North Harbor for Negros on that day, and they
could not as yet leave be
cause they still had some unfinished business - to secure
a prisoner at Muntinlupa upon orders of the Governor, in compliance with the order
of the Municipal Court of Baco
lod City. They had their tickets changed for the "SS
Basilan" which was scheduled to leave Manila for Negros Occidental on July 23,
1958.
In the afternoon of that same day, Remo arrived at the Clover boarding house and
invited Pabicon, Ocana and Caceres to walk wit him along the Dewey Boulevard. As
they strolled along, a candid photographer took their pic
t ures and gave Pabicon
two receipts (Exhibits 24-PJL and 24-PJL-1). Pabicon did not get the pictures later
however. When they returned to the Clover boarding house after hours of walking,
they found Jamero and Guanzon there still playing mahjong.
In the morning of July 21, 1958, Pabicon and Jamero went to Malacaan to meet
Remo there as previously arrang
ed by Pabicon and Remo during the stroll at the
Luneta the other day. They deposited their firearms at Gate 4 in the Palace and
proceeded to the Local Government Section. There, they signed their names on
the " visitors book" at the table of a certain Mr. Villanueva. Remo arrived later and
presented the Governors order authorizing their trip to Manila; Mr. Villanueva
prepared the necessary "certifi
cate of appearance" of Remo and the five provincial
guards with him in the trip which was later signed by Secretary Sofronio Quimson.
17/43
2/23/13
The said certificate was marked as Ex

hibit 29-PJL-2, while the page of the visitors
book where
o n the names of Pabicon and Jamero appear was marked as Exhibit 28PJL.
From Malacaan, Remo, Jamero and Pabicon went to Muntinlupa to get an inmate
there, Pableo Bolinas, whose appearance was needed in the Municipal Court of
Bacolod City. They failed to secure the said prisoner, however, because the
Prisons Superintendent required them to pro
duce a subpoena signed by a Judge of
the Court of First Instance, so, they returned to Manila empty-handed.
Meanwhile, Ocana and Caceres went to Phil-Am Com
pound that same morning.
They failed to see the Governor on that occasion. Knowing that Jamero and
Pabicon had gone to Malacaan earlier, they went to the place upon their return to
the Clover boarding house. Guanzon joined them this time. But upon reaching
Gate 4 of Malacaan, they saw the names of Jamero and Pabicon already written in
the log book there and upon inquiry from the guard, learned that they had left.
Knowing also that Jamero and Pabicon were to go to Muntinlupa to get priso
ner
Pableo Bolinas after their trip to Malacaan, Ocana, Caceres and Guanzon followed
them to Muntinlupa but again, upon inquiry from the guard, they were informed
that cer
t ain provincial guards from Negros Occidental had left earlier, so, they also
returned to Manila, arriving at Clover boarding house about past noon. They did
not leave the boarding house after that.
In the morning of July 22, 1958, Pabicon, Jamero, Ocana, Caceres and Guanzon
went to the Phil-Am Compound to bid Governor Gatuslao good-by. They stayed
there until about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, when they returned to Clover
boarding house.
Then they started preparing for their return trip to Negros
Occidental. They actually left Manila on board the "Basilan" at around 2:00 or 3:00
o'clock in the morning of July 23, 1958, and reached Pulu
pandan, Negros
Occidental, the following day.
Shortly after their arrival, they prepared the
corresponding vou
chers and attached thereto the necessary supporting papers in
order to obtain reimbursements for their travelling ex
penses during their stay in
Manila. Said papers were pro
duced from the Provincial Treasurer's Office and/or the
Provincial Auditor's Office of Negros Occidental during the trial and marked as
exhibits. A PAL passenger mani
fest for July 19, 1953, from Manila to Bacolod City
(Exh. 5I-PJL) was, likewise, identified and presented in evi
dence to show that
accused Jamero and Pabicon did not re
t urn by plane to Negros on that day which
was within the period of their stay in Manila from July 16 to 23, 1958, as their
names do not appear in said passenger manifest.
The above declarations of accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon, along with
those of Asst. Provincial Warden Severino Remo and provincial guards Anastacio
Ca
ceres and Ernesto Ocana were further corroborated by the testimony of
Governor Valeriano Gatuslao who said that in the morning of July 17, 1958,
accused Jamero and Pabicon, along with Reno, Ocana, and Caceres visited him at
the house of his brother, congressman Gatuslao, at the Phil-Am Compound and
18/43
2/23/13
reported that they have delivered the 27 insane prisoners to the National Mental
Hospital; that after said report, Pabicon, Jamero, Ocana and Caceres went to Polo,
Bulacan to deliver certain fighting cocks to Mayor Ignacio Santiago, his son-in-law;
that in the morning of July 18, 1938, Pabicon, Ocana and Caceres again visited him
and he took along Ocana and Caceres with him to the PNB; that he loaned the
three guards P10.00 each that day; that in the morning of July 19, 1958, the three
guards visited him again, and he remembered having sent a letter addressed to Mr.
Mariano Yagore of the PNB branch at Bacolod City to Asst. Provincial Treasurer
Narboneta at the airport thru Segovia who left the Phil-Am Compound at about
1:00 that afternoon with Pabicon, Remo, Ocana and Caceres; that in the afternoon
of that day, Ja
mero and Guanzon also came to see him to borrow P10.00 each;
that he did not see any of the guards on Sunday, July 20, 1958; that in the
afternoon of July 21, Remo reported to him that Pabicon, Jamero and he, had gone
to Muntinlupa that day to get prisoner Pableo Bolinas but were not able to secure
his release; and that in the morning of July 22, 1958 accused Jamero and Pabicon,
along with Ocana, Caceres and Guanzon informed him that they were going to leave
for Negros on board the "Basilan"; while Remo told him that he would leave by
plane.
The Governor declared further that upon learning about the death of Atty. Ernesto
Piccio in the newspapers, he called up the Provincial Commander of Negros Occiden
tal and ordered him to make the necessary investigation. The said Provincial
Commander informed him later upon his return from abroad in March, 1959, that
provincial guards Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon were among those sus
pected
as having something to do with the killing. He later recalled, however, that Pabicon
and Jamero were a
mong the provincial guards he sent to Manila at the time Atty.
Piccio was killed; that is why he had to speak to Gen. Campo about the matter, in
one of his trips to Manila. He was advised to send the said guards over to Manila
for investigation; and upon his return to Negros Occidental, he instructed Pabicon,
Jamero, Remo, Ocana, Caceres and Guanzon to present themselves at Camp
Crame. For reasons of economy, he made the instruction on the occasion of the
delivery of a group of prisoners by the same group to Muntinlupa.
Mrs. Narciso Vilches, operator of the Clover board
ing house, also confirmed the
Statements of Jamero and Pabicon that they were in Manila at the time of the death
of Atty. Ernesto Piccio. She declared that between July 16 and 22, 1958, she saw
Pabicon and Jamero in her board
ing house together with Guanzon, Ocana and
Caceres. She remembered specially Ocana who was nicknamed "Cabatsoy"; and
Caceres who was always singing. She testified further that she was investigated
several times by the CIS agents at Camp Crame in the months of April and May,
1959. She signed several statements in connection with the said investigations,
one of which was the statement (Exh. P) wherein she appears to have stated that
"she did not re
member having seen accused Jamero and Pabicon in the evening of
July 19, 1958." She explained that, that statement there, was not actually made by
her; that it was placed in the statement by Capt. Yapdiangco of the CIS; and that
the truth of the matter was that said accused, Jamero and Pabicon, were there at
19/43
2/23/13
her boarding house at Clover building on Exhague St. She explained further that
she was beguiled into signing the document by Capt. Yapdiangco of the CIS who
told her that such statement was necessary in order that neither the family of the
late Atty. Piccio nor accused Jamero and Pabicon would have any grudge a
gainst
her.
For his defense, accused Rodrigo Honorio Lopez @ Rudy Lopez denied the
statements of prosecution witnesses Ino
cencio Retirado and Nepomuceno Fabros
regarding his alleged involvement in the plot to kill Atty. Piccio during the various
meetings mentioned by them. He, likewise, denied that he followed the jeep of
Atty. Piccio in the afternoon of July 19, 1958, much less gave the alleged signals to
Pabicon, Jamero and Retirado to go on with the killing of Atty. Piccio by putting the
lights of his car "out and on". He never went to Crossing Bombahan, and his car
was parked at his place of residence the whole afternoon of that day. Although he
was Provincial Warden at the time, he had no hand in the selection of the provincial
guards who escorted the 27 insane prisoners from Negros Occiden
t al to Manila
during the period that Atty. Piccio was killed.
He merely approved the list of
guards to accompany the prisoners that was submitted to him.
Rudy Lopez further testified that he really called Atty. Piccio "Spaniard" during the
1955 election political rallies. He, furthermore, admitted that he was really ac
cused
in a case involving the incident between his group and Constancio Tan, but that it
was he himself who had the case settled between them without the intervention of
Atty. Piccio. He denies the statements of the witnesses for the prosecution that
Atty. Piccio was instrumental in his se
paration from Lopez Sugar Central, for it was
the Manager Mr. Arthur Cooper who had a grudge against him after the 1957
election because Cooper supported a candidate opposed to the one he supported
who won in that election. In that case against honor filed against him by Letty
Balison, he heard rumors that it was filed at the instigation of Atty. Piccio, but when
he asked him (Piccio) if there was truth in it, Atty. Piccio denied having anything to
do with that case. Moreover, after the 1957 election, he complete
ly lost interest in
politics and left Sagay to reside in Bacolod City. Apart from politics also, accused
Rudy Lopez testified that he and Atty. Piccio were good friends: they were
compadres; were "poker pals" in Sagay, and used to take refreshments during
session of the Municipal Council of Sagay. He also recalled that Atty. Piccio acted as
guarantor when he first acquired a truck from the South
ern Motors, and later, he
was able to trade-in his old panel, with a new truck from, the Southern Motors with
his aid also.
Regarding the alleged teetings in the house of ac
cused Jesus Vasquez in the
months of May and June, 1958, wherein, according to prosecution witness
Retirado, he participated in plotting the killing of Atty. Piccio, accused Rudy Lopez
testified that in those months he was not in Negros because he attended the inservice train
ing of Provincial Wardens in Muntinlupa, Rizal. He pro
duced a copy of
the Graduation Program of that training (Exh. 52-PJL-1) wherein his name appears,
and the picture taken on that occasion (Exhs. 52-PJL-2 & 52-PJL-3) where
in he
20/43
2/23/13
also appears. He admitted, however, that the said in-service training was during
the period from May 16 to June 5 or 6, 1958.
Accused Joel Bingcang offered his own alibi - he was in Ajuy, Iloilo, on July 19,
1958.
He testified that on July 18, 1958, he took a motor boat at Manapla,
Negros Occidental to Culaso, Ajuy Iloilo. He went to the place upon instructions of
Mr. Eduardo Ledesma, the administrator of Mr. Ramon Lacson, for the purpose of
looking into the possibility of acquiring cattle from the place for breeding purposes.
In the evening of July 18, 1958, he slept in the house of Mayor Jose Roxas of
Ajuy. The following morning, July 19, 1958, he met a local tough guy by the name
of Conrado Anigon who asked him money for drinks. The guy got rough with him
in front of many people when he denied his request which left him no alter
native - a
fight between them ensued. Anigon was rendered unconscious in that fight, while
his right hand got sprained in that encounter. As a result, he and Anigon were
arrested at about 11:00 or 12:00 o'clock in the morn
ing and placed in jail. He was
released only at about 3:00 or 10:00 o'clock in the evening of that day after.
Anigon expressed his desire not to file any complaint against him.
In the course of his testimony, a written certifi
cation of the Chief of Police of Ajuy,
Iloilo, relative to the detention of Joel Bingcang in the municipal jail thereat on July
19, 1958, was presented and marked as Exh. 3-Bingcang. A photostat copy of the
corresponding page of the Police Blotter of Ajuy wherein an entry appears to the
effect that "at about 11:00 am. July 19, 1958, Joel Bingcang and Conrado Anigon
were arrested and lodged in jail for fighting each other by Sgt. Luis Celis", and that
"at about 8:00 p.m. July 19, 1958, Joel Bingcang and Conrado Anigon were
released was also presented later marked as Exh. 4-Bingcang.
Joel Bingcang also made a blanket denial of the tes
t imony of Inocencio Retirado
regarding his alleged parti
cipation in the killing of Atty. Piccio on the night of July
19, 1958. He admitted tho that he acted as toastmas
t er in one of the political
meetings of accused Rudy Lopez in the 1955 campaign and said "Do not vote for a
Spaniard", but declared that he and Atty. Piccio were friends after 1955. They used
to greet each other. Atty. Piccio even invited him once to join him in going to the
boxing bout which he did not accept.
For his defense, accused Florentino Vasquez, Jr. @ Jr. Vasquez denied all the
allegations of Rtirado and Fabros that he was present during the various meetings
men
t ioned by them wherein he and the other accused discussed the plot to kill
Atty. Piccio. He testified that during the lifetime of Atty. Piccio, they were good
friends. They were together in the Sugar Planters Association; they cam
paigned
together for Congressman Jose Puey against Ramon Lacson in the 1953 election.
Although they belonged to different factions in the 1955 election, still they were
friends. There were times when Atty. Piacio took him home at Hacienda Bulanon in
his (Piccio) car or jeep. He recalled that they were once together in a dance at
Para
iso, Fabrica, when the toughies there began harassing Atty. Piccio; he at once
approached him and took him to a lighted place, away from the toughies. Atty.
21/43
2/23/13
Piccio had also invited him to his farmhouse near Hacienda Conchita and showed
him his fighting cocks, house and plants about three weeks or a month before his
death. There, they had occasion to talk about politics, and he recalled that Atty
Piccio asked him whether or not Rudy Lopez or his brother Jesus Vasquez were
intending to run for Mayor in 1959. He assured him then that neither of them was
intending to run for the position. Atty. Piccio even asked him to make comment in
his chances of winning should he decide to run for Mayor. He added that Atty.
Piccio and his younger brother Antonio were very good friends and were always to
gether.
He declared further that he knows Retirado and Fabros. They were introduced to
him by accused Pedro Arana during the 1955 election campaign. They once had
occasion to come to his house in March, 1958, seeking his help in getting
employment for them either in the Office of Gavernor Gatuslao or Congressman
Gatuslao.
He frankly told them, nevertheless, that there were no available
positions, there for which reads they both got mad at him. He denied the
allegation that the plan was to have him appointed Chief of Police should their plot
to secure the suspension of Mayor Katalbas materialize, for he knew he was not
qualified for the job, not only because of his size (52") but also for the reasons
that he was not a civil service eligible, not a guerilla, never been employ
ed before,
and not physically fit for the job as even dur
ing his high school days, he had always
been exempted from military training due to his enlarged heart.
He also admitted in the course of his testimony that he volunteered to help the PC
solve the mysterious killing of Atty. Piccio; but that was not for the purpose of mis
leading the PC investigators. He offered his help because he was a friend of Atty.
Piccio and he knew the places where he went before he died.
Accused Jesus Vasquez testified that he and Atty. Piccio were close to each other
as early as 1937 when they were still students in Manila. They were together in one
political group in 1953 - they both supported Jose Puey against Ramon Lacson.
They belonged to different factions in the political fight in Sagay in 1955, but they
were, nonetheless, together in their support for the candidacy of Governor
Valeriano Gatuslao in that election. In 1957, Atty. Piccio supported the candidacy
of Jose Puey while he supported his opponent, Gustilo. He also recalled that in
1953 or 1954, Atty. Piccio was his guarantor when he bought a truck from the
Southern Motors.
Jesus Vasquez declared further that in the afternoon of July 19, 1958, at about
5:00 o'clock, he was talking with Salvador Escalanta and Mr. Hollero in his house in
front of the Provincial Jail when Atty. Piccio passed by in his jeep. Atty. Piccio
stopped for sometime and con
versed with him - he was inviting him to join him in
see
ing the boxing bout in Fabrica. He told him, he would join if he could wait
because he had to take a bath first, to which Atty. Piccio replied: "Compadre, I am
sorry, I am in a hurry."
Atty. Piccio and he were good friends. He would of
t en pass by his house and watch
22/43
2/23/13
at he train his fight

ing cocks. He also remembered that about three months before
his death, he gave him (Piccio) two chico seed
lings.
Regarding the testimonies of Retirado and Fabros, relative to his alleged
participation in the planning of the killing of Atty. Piccio in the various, meetings al
legedly held in his house, accused Jesus Vasquez denied his involvement therein.
He denied that any such meetings were ever held in his house. He remembered tho
that sometime in March, 1958, Retirado and Fabros came to his house and had a
conversation with his brother, Jr. Vas
quez. As he was then reading in the sala, he
heard the requests of Retirado and Fabros seeking the help of his brother to find
work for them. He knew his brother had told them that there was no work
available for them, and he noticed that both Retirado and Fabros got dis
gusted
with his brother.
Salvador Escalante corroborated the testimony of Jesus Vasquez that they were
conversing in the house of the latter in the afternoon of July 19, 1958, when the
jeep of Atty. Piccio passed by and Atty. Piccio backed his jeep and invited Jesus
Vasquez to join him in seeing the boxing bout at Fabrica. He further testified that
he had seen Atty. Piccio passed by the house of Jesus Vasquez several times
before, and recalled that at one time Atty. Piccio even went up the house and talked
with Jesus Vasquez in the balcony.
For his part, accused Pedro Arana had another alibi to offer. He declared that he
was in the farm on July 19, 1958. He was there at Sitio Cabungahan, about 27
kms. from his house in Fabrica, Sagay. He went there at about 7:00 o'clock in the
morning and reached the place at about 9:00. He stayed in the place for about
three hours only and had to go home to Fabrica at about 1:00 p.m. be
cause a farm
hand, Venancio Soledad had sought him there trying to collect his wages for
plowing his fields. They left the farm together and reached Fabrica at about 5:00
o'clock in the afternoon. He did not leave his house after that and stayed there till
the following morning.
Accused Pedro Arana declared further that he had nothing to do with the killing of
Atty. Piccio on that day. He denies the statement of Retirado that he attend
ed
several meetings in the house of Jesus Vasquez wherein the plot to kill Atty. Piccio
was hatched.
He also denied the claim of Retirado that they were relatives,
although he admitted that Retirado called him Tatay Pendoy. He, further, admitted
that at one time, he and his wife approached Atty. Piccio in his office at the
Southern Motors Build
ing and solicited his help in order that the Southern Motors
should not proceed in foreclosing the mortgage of a truck he acquired from the
company thru another person, but he denied the testimony of a prosecution
witness to the effect that his wife cried when Atty. Piccio told them that there was
nothing he could do as he was only follow
ing the orders of the Company. He
declared finally that he entertained no resentment against Atty. Piccio after that
incident.
Corroborating Pedro Arana's testimony, Venancio So
ledad declared that he did seek
23/43
2/23/13
out Pedro Arana in his farm on July 19, 1958, to collect his unpaid wages for
plowing his fields because he failed to find him in his house in Fabrica and he was
badly in need of money on that day. Asked why he specially remembered that
occa
s ion to be
on July 19, 1958, Venancio Soledad explained that he
remembered the day because it was the time his brother got married, the very
reason why he got short of funds and had to collect from Pedro Arana. Asked by
the court why he thought of collecting on the very day of the wedding, Venancio
Soledad explained further that he only realized they were short of money on the
day of the wedding, that is why he had to go and see Pedro Arana early in the
morning even if in so doing, he missed the wedding ceremony of his brother.
Finally, accused Oscar Ramirez declared that he was in his place of work, at the
Insular Lumber Company, in the morning of July 19, 1958. Office hours on that
day was up to 12:00 noon and he had his dinner at home. He never left the house
after that except at about 7:30 in the evening when he went to Fabrica to witness
the boxing bout. He went home only after the boxing bout was over at about
11:30 or 12:00 midnight. Like his co-accused, Ramirez denied any complicity in the
plot to kill Atty. Piccio allegedly discussed in the various meetings men
t ioned by
Retirado. He also denied the claim of Retirado that they are relatives. He admitted
that in the inaugu
ral ball in honor of Governor Gatuslao, Atty. Piccio and he had an
altercation or discussion, but explained that they were both tipsy then and Atty.
Piccio did not make anything out of it. He did not file any case against him, for they
were good friends. Atty. Piccio, as a mat
t er of fact, placed his arms around him
after the inci
dent. Regarding the case of physical injuries and slan
der filed against
him by Hernani Serafin and Delia Lamela, Ramirez declared that he filed counter
charges against them also. It was on that occasion that Retirado offered himself to
be his witness to which he consented; but Retirado was not able to testify in court
because both cases were dismissed later. After that incident, however, Retirado
began molesting him by asking loans in money, rice and other things which he
denied. That was the time he knew Retirado was not a reliable witness, because
he told him: "You deny my requests now that I am so hard-up, but during the time
of your case, I even, volunteered to testi
fy for you even if I was not present during
the incident." He learned later that Retirado was not really present dur
ing the
incident involved in the cases aforesaid.
Atty. Ernesto Pilla testified in this connection that he knew Retirado to be a
professional witness. He was known in the community where he lives as a
"procurador special". He testified further that on the night of July 19, 1958, he saw
Inocencio Retirado in the boxing bout at Fabrica at about 9:30 in the evening.
Accused Oscar Ramirez concluded his testimony by declaring that he abandoned
politics shortly after his election as councilor of Sagay together with Atty. Pic
cio in
the 1955 election; that he attended sessions of the municipal council only from
January to October, 1956, after which he completely lost interest in the same and
devoted full time to his work as an employee in the In
s ular Lumber Company.
24/43
2/23/13
In rebuttal, the prosecution presented the testimony of CIS agent Inocencio Adrias,
Amado Torres of the Bacolod Police Department, Leonardo Boot of the PAL Office
at Bacolod City, and a former Chief of Police of Sagay, Negros Occidental.
Agent Adrias of the CIS testified to rebut the tes
t imony of Mrs. Narcisa Vilches of
the defense to the ef
fect that she only consented to the statement in her af
fidavit
at Camp Crame that she did not remember having seen accused Mansueto Jamero
and Julian Pabicon at her boarding house on July 19, 1958, at the insistence of
Capt. Yapdiangco of the CIS who explained to her that such state
ment had to be
placed in order that neither the family of Atty. Piccio nor the accused Mansueto
Jamero and Julian Pabicon will have no resentment against her; although in truth
and in fact, she did not make any statement of that sort because she was sure
that they were there in her boarding house on said date. Contrary to such
statement of Mrs. Vilches, CIS Agent Adrias declared that he was present during
the times that Mrs. Vilches testified at Camp Crame and at no instance during the
whole proceed
ing there, did Capt. Yapdiangco ever make such an insi
nuation. He
declared that all the answers appearing in the affidavit of Mrs. Vilches were given by
her personally; that Mrs. Vilches read the statement herself after the same was
prepared; and that she signed it voluntarily thereafter. Capt. Yapdiangco, on the
other hand, did not testify as to the circumstances surrounding the taking of the
statement of Mrs. Narcisa Vilches in question as the prosecution had earlier
manifested that it was not putting the said captain on the witness stand to testify,
and in consequence of which manifestation, Capt. Yapdiang
co was never excluded
from the courtroom during all the time that the other witnesses for the prosecution
were testifying. Agent Adrias also testified that he investigated accused Joel
Bingcang before the Justice of the Peace of Sagay on July 27, 1958, in connection
with the killing of Atty. Piccio on July 19, 1958, but that Joel Bingcang refused to
sign the said statement later.
Witness Amado Torres of the Bacolod City Police Department testified to disprove
the claim of accused Man
s ueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon that they met him in the
evening of July 19, 1958, in Manila. He declared that he really saw them one
evening playing the pin ball machines in the vicinity of Dencia's Restaurant; but that
was on the night of July 20, not on July 19, 1958, as claimed by them. He
maintained that he was positive about the date, because it was a Sunday, and
earlier in the morning of that day, he had gone to church and heard mass.
The local PAL agent in Bacolod City, Leonardo Boot, declared that as station agent
of the Philippine Airlines, he knew for a fact that in 1958, there were two regular
flights between Bacolod City and Manila, one in the morning and one in the
afternoon. He testified that the re
gular flying hours or time between the two places
was only two hours. Apparently, this testimony was presented to counteract the
effect of the passenger manifest of the PAL trip from Manila to Bacolod on July 19,
1958, purport
ing to show that the names of accused Mansueto Jamero and Julian
Pabicon were not among those listed in said pass
enger manifest.
25/43
2/23/13
The former Chief of Police of Sagay, Emilio Loga, declared that in the morning of
July 20, 1958, which was a Sunday, he met accused Mansueto Jamero in front of
the Jet Department Store in Bacolod City.
With the foregoing evidence, the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, the
Hon. Judge Jose F. Fer
nandez, presiding, handed down the decision in this case
dated January 27, 1962, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds and so declares that the following
accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder,
under Art. 248, R.P.C., to be applied in its maximum degree, (Art. 64,
R.P.C.) and they are hereby sentenced, each, to suffer the extreme
penalty of death:
1. RODRIGO HONORIO LOPEZ,
2. MANSUETO JAMERO,
3. JULIAN PABICON, and
4. JOEL BINGCANG
"With respect to the accused Je
s us Vasquez, Florentino Vasquez, Jr.,
Pedro Arana and Oscar Ramirez, the evidence shows that these four ac
cused were present in those seven meetings held during the period
from February to July 19, 1958, and that they were vocal about the
liquidation of Atty. Piccio who was the stumbling block to their political
ascendency in Sagay. The accused Florentino Vasquez, Jr., in particular,
even went to the ex
t ent of promising support to the families of Jamero
and Pabicon if something happened to them. Jesus Vasquez on his part
was not only vocal about his desire to eliminate Atty. Piccio, but the four
meetings, including the last one on July 19, 1958, were held in his
house in front of the provincial jail in Ba
colod City. These four accused
shouted for the blood of Atty. Pic
cio, but they did not have the nerve to
commit the crime. Like the mul
t itude in the Roman Coliseum of old,
they seem to be mere "spectators", instead of "gladiators".
"The four accused above-men
t ioned discussed the murder of Atty.
Piccio in the seven meetings during the period from February to July 19,
1958, and they proposed the same to be committed by Pabicon,
Jamero, and Retirado. Hence, it is quite clear that they conspired
together and con
nived with each other in the murder of Atty. Piccio.
However, the evidence does not clearly show that they actually shared in
the decision of Rodrigo Lopez on the execution of the crime of murder
on the morning of July 19, 1958. Conspiracy and propo
s al to commit a
crime without a defi
nite decision having been reached by the
conspirators to commit it, is not punishable, except in certain cases
specified by law, but murder is not one of them.
26/43
2/23/13
"Hence, the following accused namely: JESUS VASQUEZ, FLORENTINO

VASQUEZ, Jr., PEDRO ARANA and OSCAR RAMIRES are hereby apprised
of the gravity and irreparable consequences of their highly condemnable
act which, although not punishable is nonethe
less reprehensible, and
they are hereby acquitted on reasonable doubt only.
"In the interest of justice, this Court will recommend a punitive legis
lation for conspiracy and proposal to commit murder.
"SO ORDERED."
Accused Mansueto Jamero, Julian Pabicon, Rodrigo Ho
norio Lopez @ Rudy Lopez
and Joel Bingcang who now stand convicted and sentenced to death, have
appealed.
Appellants have taken the position that it was error on the part of the lower court
in ordering the discharge of Inocencio Retirado from the Information in order to
make him state witness. It is pointed out that the atti
t ude of the court, during the
hearing on the motion of the prosecution to discharge the said witness and the
opposition they filed thereto, had misled them into believing that it was not
necessary for them to prove that then accused Inocencio Retirado is the same
"Cresencio Retirado" who was convicted of the crime of malicious mischief in
Criminal Case No. 470 the Justice of the Peace Court of Sagay, Negros Occidental,
due to the comment of the trial court that "what is more important is the answer to
the question as to whether the crime of malicious mischief involves moral
turpitude". And it is contended that the said order of discharge was a clear
violation of the pro
visions of the Rules of Court regarding the discharge of an
accused to be utilized as state witness, not only for the reason that the crime of
malicious mischief of which Retirado was previously convicted involves moral
turpitude, but also because among the accused, Retirado appears to be one of the
most guilty of the crime charged, and his testimony was not corroborated.
Appellants' position is not entirely correct. It is true that during the hearing on the
motion to discharge Inocencio Retirado from the Information, the trial court
appears to have made the comment pointed to above by herein appellants, which
could really have misled the defense into believing that the court a quo did not
deem it necessary for them to prove that accused Inocencio Retirado and the
"Cresencio Retirado" convicted of malicious mischief in the Justice of the Peace
Court of Sagay were one and the same person; but that alone is no cause for
lament for, even were We to assume that the defense then could have successfully
proven that Inocencio Retirado was the one previously convicted of malicious
mischief by the Justice of the Peace Court, still the question that would ultimately
arise, and We agree with the court below that this is more important, is the
determination of the issue whether or not the crime of malicious mischief involves
moral turpitude. Moral turpitude has been described as an act of baseness,
vileness and depravity in the private and social duty which a man owes to his
fellowmen or to society in general[1 ] done, out of a spirit of cruelty, hostility or
27/43
2/23/13
revenge,[2 ] but there is also authority to the effect that an act is not so done when
it is prompted by the sudden resentment of an injury calculated in no slight degree
to awaken passion.[3 ] In the light of these authorities, We have searched the re
cord of the case in an effort to ascertain the gravity of the nature of the crime of
malicious mischief allegedly com
mitted by Retirado, but We found the evidence
wanting in this respect. What appears to have been established by the defense
were the facts that Cresencio Retirado was convict
ed of the crime of malicious
mischief by the Justice of the Peace Court of Sagay, Negros Occidental, and that
the said accused was therein sentenced to five (5) days imprisonment. In the
absence, therefore, of any evidence to show the gra
vity and the nature of the
malicious mischief committed, We are constrained to declare that We are not in a
position to say whether or not the previous conviction referred to, assuming
Cresencio Retirado and Inocencio Retirado are one and the same person, proves
that Retirado had displayed the baseness, the vileness and the depravity which
constitute moral turpitude. And considering that under paragraph 3 of Article 329
of the Revised Penal Code, any deliberate act (not constituting arson or other
crimes involving destruction) causing damage to the property of another, may
consti
t ute the crime of malicious mischief, We should not make haste in declaring
that such crime involves moral turpitude without determining, at least, the value of
the property destroyed and/or the circumstances under which the act of destroying
was committed. Moreover, it appears that after the lower court issued the order of
discharge complained of, the defense ventilated before this Court the issue as to
whether, or not the crime of malicious mischief involves moral turpitude by
questioning the legality of the said order in a petition for certiorari and prohibition.
The fact that this Court did not give due course to their petition (Jamero, et al. vs.
Judge Enriquez, et al., L
15552) should have been sufficient warning that the theory
advanced by them is not meritorious.
Anent the charge that Retirado should not have been discharged as state witness
because he vas one of the most guilty of the accused, suffice is to say that the
evidence shows that he played only a minor role in the killing of Atty. Ernesto Piccio
- that of acting as a lookout for the car supposed to follow the victim's jeep and
give out the go-signal for the killers to proceed. Aside from the fact that he did
not lay a hand upon the victim, he appears to have been a very reluctant actor
because he did not have the nerve to kill a fellowman, as shown by the
circumstances of his fleeing and leaving his companions behind at the scene of the
crime immediately after he witnessed the horrible attack upon the victim, and
subsequently, giving himself up to the authorities and confessing his participation
therein.
The claim of herein appellants that the testimony of Retirado was not corroborated
by other witnesses, should also be denied. It is true that as to the actual act of
killing the victim, the testimony of Retirado was without corroboration; but it was
precisely because of that circumstance that the prosecution had to ask for his
discharge as state witness. There was no other direct evidence available to the
prosecution, and, therefore, there was absolute necessity for his testimony. At
28/43
2/23/13
any rate, Retirado's testimony regarding the motive behind the killing of Atty.
Piccio, and the identity of the persons seen riding his jeep in that fateful afternoon
of July 19, 1958, immediately before and after the killing, appears to have been
substantially corroborated by other witnesses. It should also be borne in mind that
this Court has time and again declared that even if the dis
charged witness should
lack some of the qualifications enumerated by section 9, Rule 119 of the Rules of
Court, his testimony will not, for that reason alone, be dis
carded or disregarded.[4 ]
In the discharge of a co-defendant, the court may reasonably be expected to err;
but such error in discharging an accused has been held not be a reversible one.[5 ]
This, is upon the principle that such error of the court does not affect the
competency and the quality of the testimony of the discharged defendant.[6 ]
Other assigned errors deal. With the credibility of the principal witnesses for the
prosecution. Appellants took pains to point out various alleged discrepancies and
contradictions in the testimonies of Inocencio Retirado, Nopomuceno Fabros,
Arsenio Gepana, Juan de la Pea and Teodulo Galo, both at the trial and during the
preliminary investigation of the case, and upon which they now lay much stress in
assailing the various claims of herein appellants in this regard.
Appellants maintain that Inocencio Retirado is unbelievable and unreliable because
he has a faulty memory; he is known as a "procurador especial" in the locality where
he resides; he has been receiving a monthly allowance of P90.00 from Camp Crame
where he has been staying under protective custody while this case was being tried
in the lower court, and had even been granted the special privileges of engaging in
the buy and sell of hogs during the period of his stay there. In support of the
claim that witness has a poor memory, it is pointed out that Retirado, during the
trial, was not even sure whether his real name is "Inocencio" or "Cresencio"; he
could not remember whether he was previously convicted of malicious mischief in
the Justice of the Peace Court of Sagay as "Inocencio", or under the name of
"Cresencio"; he could not even recall then his own date of birth, or that of his
youngest child; while he claimed to remember the exact date of the killing of Atty.
Piccio on July, 19, 1958, and the circumstances that took place months before that
date; has failed to remember the date when he testified during the preliminary
investigation of this case; he was not even sure of the distance of the jeep of the
victim from the big tree at Tinampaan, when Jamero allegedly asked Atty.Piccio to
stop his jeep because he (Jamero) wanted to urinate. Moreover, appellants insist
that Retirado could not have been in the "inner cabal" of the accused who allegedly
planned the killing of Piccio, because there is no that he had shown unflinching
loyalty to the group to make him an indispensable ally in the plot, consider that his
only previous association with them was in 1955 when the accused appointed him
as "election watcher" in the local election of that year.
These allegations should be denied. It is not sur
prising that a poor man like
Retirado would forget the matters pointed out above by herein appellants. This
wit
ness admitted that he was not really sure of his real name, because since
childhood, some of his relatives call
ed him "Inocencio", while others called him
29/43
2/23/13
"Cresencio". As to the number of meetings wherein the plot to kill Atty. Piccio was
discussed in his presence, Retirado explained that there were really about 7 or
more meetings in all, but he considered the four (4) meetings in April, May, June
and July he had mentioned, as the most important ones. With respect to the
distance of the jeep of Atty. Piccio from the big tree at Tinampaan when Jamero
asked Atty. Piccio to stop because he wanted to urinate, We believe the witness
has also explained that Jamero repeated the request about three times before the
vehicle finally came to a stop; and since the jeep was then running, naturally, there
were several distances involved. It is true that the wit
ness forgot the date of the
preliminary investigation, but this is not incompatible with the fact that be very well
remembered the date of the killing of Atty. Piccio, not only because he was a party
to the plot to eliminate the victim, but also for the reason that it is seldom in the
life of a man that he should actually witness the killing of a fellow human being. He
may not be called a "paid witness" either, for the amount given him during his stay
under protective custody was such a pitance which could not have impelled him to
testify falsely against herein appellants, Retirado is a family man, and such must be
the reason why inspite of the fact that Retirado was then under protective custody,
he was granted the privilege to engage in some kind of work, like buying and selling
of hogs, in order to enable him to support his family. It is also true, as claimed by
herein appellants, that Reti
rado did not originally belong to the inner circle of the
accused, but the fact stands out in the record that some months before the filling
of Atty. Piccio, the accused had tried to avail of the service of Retirado in
connection with their attempt to wrest the mayoralty of Sagay from Katalbas by
filing an administrative charge against him; and it was during this latter association
of theirs that Retirado came to know about the plot to eli
minate Atty. Piccio from
the political scene of Sagay, and soon became a party to the conspiracy to kill him.
In fact, there is evidence showing that this witness showed reluctance in joining the
"hatchetmen" who were assigned to undertake the job, but because he had been in
the conspiracy all along, the others in the cabal had to cajole and threaten him,
finally assigning him the minor role of acting as a mere lookout for the car that
followed the victim's jeep on that fateful night of the killing and gave the signal to
its "chance passengers" to proceed in the commission of the crime.
Other alleged contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of Retirado are as
follows: Retirado declared in court that Pabicon and Junior Vasquez were pre
s ent at
the meeting in the night club in the month of April, 1958, a fact he never
mentioned during the preli
minary investigation of the case; in his testimony, Re
tirado mentioned about the presence of Rudy Lopez in the said night club, contrary
to his previous declaration in the preliminary investigation that Lopez was not
there; during the preliminary investigation, this witness de
clared that it was Pabicon
and "a provincial guard" who agreed to kill Atty. Piccio for a consideration, while at
the trial, he declared that it was Pabicon and Jamero who promised to undertake
the said job; in court, Retirado declared that nobody made mention of the name of
Atty. Piccio from the time of arrival at the night club until all the participants
departed, whereas, at the preliminary investigation, he said that Piccio's name was
mentioned by Junior Vasquez in connection with election matters and the proposal
30/43
2/23/13
to kill Atty. Piccio; at the trial, this witness declared that Jamero and Pabicon left the
night club ahead of the others at about 2:00 a.m., contrary to his declara
t ion
during the preliminary investigation that he, Jamero, the provincial guard and Junior
Vasquez continued drinking in the night club until 4:00 a.m.; earlier in his testi
mony, Retirado declared that the fourth and final meeting was held in the morning
of July 19, 1958, only to state later that the 4th meeting was really held in the
second week of July, 1958; in court, Retirado testified that Jesus Vasquez, Junior
Vasquez, Araa, Ramirez, Pabicon, Jamero, Lopez and he were the ones present in
the said meet
ing, whereas, in the preliminary investigation of the case, he did not
mention Pabicon but instead mentioned "two pro
vincial guards" in addition to the
rest in the group; Re
t irado declared earlier at the trial that he went to Baco
lod City
in the morning of July 19, 1958, because in a pre
vious meeting held the day before,
Jamero, Pabicon and he were instructed by Rudy Lopez to come back that morning
for final instructions, contrary to his declaration later that he went to Bacolod City
that morning because in the afternoon of July 18, 1958, Pedro Araa, who was
then with Ramirez, instructed him to see Junior Vasquez at the house of the latter
the following morning; at one instance in his testimony, Retirado said that Jamero,
Pabicon and he were instructed by Rudy Lopez to wait at certain assigned places
before 5:00 p.m., July 19, 1958, only to state later on that there was no definite
time given, the instruction being, for them to take a ride with Atty. Piccio in the
jeep of the latter who would be leaving his place of work at 5:00 o'clock in the
afternoon, and it was up for them to use their heads so that they could ride with
him; he declared earlier that Lopez and Bingcang talked for about 5 minutes, only
to declare later on that he was not sure how long they talked with each other; in
his direct exa
mination, Retirado declared that as soon as he saw the jeep of Atty.
Piccio pass by the Ramos Machine Shop where he was waiting, he hailed it,
whereupon, Atty. Pic
cio asked him if he (Retirado) wanted to ride with him going
home to Sagay, which is contrary to his statement under cross examination, that it
was he who asked Atty. Piccio if he could take a ride with him in going home to
Sagay; he declared during the preliminary investigation that whey Atty. Picco saw
Bingcang come from behind the big tree at Tinampaan, Piccio asked Bingcang why
the lat
t er was there, while at the trial, he declared that it was Bingcang who asked
Atty. Piccio where the latter was going; Retirado declared under direct examination
that he could not ascertain then whether it was a "jack" or a "tire wrench" with
which Pabicon hit the head of Atty. Piccio because it was dark, whereas under cross
examina
t ion, the same witness stated that he already knew then with which object
Pabicon hit the victim, only that he was not sure then whether the said object was
the one called the "jack" or the "tire wrench"; under direct examination, Retirado
declared that the instruction given by Rudy Lopez was "not to use a revolver or any
weapon that explodes" in killing Atty. Piccio, bet under cross examination, he
declared that the instruction was "to find a means of how to kill Piccio by using a
revolver"; Retirado declared that when Jamero struck at the victim, Jamero's right
foot was on the running board while his left foot was on the ground, but when he
was later asked to demonstrate the position of Jamero as he saw him thrust at
Piccio, he showed that it was the left foot of Jamero which was on the rennin, board
31/43
2/23/13
while his right foot was the one on the ground; earlier in his statement, Retirado
declared that after running away from the scene of the crime, he stayed in hiding
"for a while" at a cer
t ain place, only to state later on that he hid in the said place for
about 4 or 5 hours; that place where he stayed in hiding was first described by
Retirado as a "coconut plantation", but later, Retirado described the said place as a
"sugar cane field; and while Retirado first declared that Rudy Lopez instructed
Jamero to look for a hunting knife to be used in the killing, he said later on that
there was no such instruction given.
As regards the testimony of Nepomuceno Fabros, appellants point out the following
alleged contradict
ions: Describing the circumstances that took place in one of the
meetings wherein the plot to kill Piccio was discussed, Fabros declared that he
heard Rudy Lopez make the following remark: "Just take it easy, because we are
not yet the king of the provincial jail", contrary to his previous declaration during
the preliminary investi
gation that not only Lopez but all the others who were
present in that meeting also made remarks of substan
t ially the same import in
"chorus"; in court, Fabros stated that Jesus Vasquez had also made the remark;
"Just take it easy boys", which statement Fabros never attributed to Jesus Vasquez
during the preliminary investigation; Fabros declared during the trial that Pabicon
did rot say anything at the time, which is contrary to what he declared during the
preliminary investigation that Pabicon joined in the "chorus"; in court, Fabros said
that he did not hear Jamero say anything, whereas, in the pre
liminary investigation,
Fabros stated that Jamero was one of those who joined in the "chorus" also;
Fabros said during the preliminary investigation of the case that he left the house
of Jesus Vasquez after eating there, con
t rary to his declaration in court later on
that he did not eat then in the house of Jesus Vasquez; Fabros declared earlier at
the preliminary investigation that Jesus Vas
quez was in the house when he came,
contrary to his testimony in court later, that when, he arrived, Jesus Vasquez was
outside the house in front of the Provincial Jail; he declared in court that Pabicon
was present in that meeting, but when he testified in court later, he did not de
clared that Pabicon was also there; according to Fabros (when he testified during
the preliminary investigation), after the meeting of the group sometime in the
month of February, 1958, they met again for a second time in the month of July or
August, which contradicts his later tes
t imony in court that the second meeting in
his presence was held in the month of March of that year; Fabros de
clared during
the preliminary investigation that in that second meeting Rudy Lopez simply asked
the group if they "were already decided", contrary to his declaration dur
ing the trial
where he attributed certain statements to Lopez to the effect that Atty. Piccio had
always stood by the opposite camp and caused all their troubles; in court, Fabros
testified that Jesus Vasquez had referred to Atty. Piccio as "a smart guy" about
whom "something must be done", which statement Fabros did not attribute to him
during the preliminary investigation of the case; at the trial, Fabros maintained that
Pabicon had said, "I am just waiting for your words", about which statement the
said witness never mentioned at the preliminary investi
gation, and finally, according
to Fabros, during the pre
liminary investigation, Jamero and Junior Vasquez
"chorused" in saying "just say when", which statement Fabros never attributed to
32/43
2/23/13
them during the trial.

Appellants allege further, in this connection, that the testimony of Nepomuceno
Fabros did not corroborate the testimony of Inocencio Retirado. Specifically, they
point out that Retirado did not testify about any meet
ings in the months of
February and March which were, on the other hand, testified to by Fabros; that the
meeting in the house of the father-in-law of Jesus Vasquez des
cribed by Retirado
was not mentioned at all in the testi
mony of Fabros; that while Retirado made
mention of a meet
ing at the night club in the month of April, the meeting in that
month as testified to by Fabros was held in the house of Junior Vasquez; that while
according to Retirado there were meetings in the month of May and June wherein
he was present, Fabros made no mention of said meetings in his testimony; that
while it may be deduced from the testimony of Retirado that the meeting in the
second week of July was held on July 18, 1958, Fabros declared that the meeting in
the second week of July he attended, took place a few days before July 10, 1958;
that Fabros did not testify to the alleged meeting in the morning of July 19, 1958,
which was testified to by Retirado; that in all the meetings testified to by Retirado,
this witness never mentioned that Fabros was present, inasmuch the same way
that in all the meetings attended by Fabros, the latter never made mention of
Retirado as one of the conferees he saw; and that while Retirado claimed that in all
the meet
ings he attended Oscar Ramirez and Pedro Araa were pre
s ent, Fabros
never made mention of their presence in all the meetings held in his presence.
With respect to the testimony of Arsenio Gepana, appellants point out the following
alleged contradictions:
1. In the course of his testimony, Gepana declared that he first saw the jeep of
Atty. Piccio when it stopped about two feet away from him; at another instance, he
said that the jeep was still about ten meters away from him when he noticed it
running parallel to the road; later he said that the jeep swerved towards him when
it was about two meters away, the reason why he figured that Atty. Pic
cio must be
drunk; whereas, in the preliminary investiga
t ion of the case, Gepana declared that
even while the said jeep was still far, he already saw its flickering lights.
2. At the trial, Gepana testified that when the said jeep was approaching him, "the
light was bright", contrary to his statement during the preliminary investigation that
as the said jeep was nearing the place were he was sit
t ing, its "light became
darker".
3. During the preliminary investigation, Gepana said that the jeep of Atty. Piccio
stopped near him because it had to give way to a passenger true at the trial, on
the other hand, he first said that he did not know why the said jeep stopped in
front of him, only to explain later on that the jeep stopped because a passenger
truck unloaded passen
gers on the opposite side of the road while another cargo
truck passed by; and
4. At the trial, Gepana testified that when the jeep of Atty. Piccio stopped in front
33/43
2/23/13
of him on the night of July 19, 1958, he readily recognized the persons riding the
Piccio jeep to be the accused Joel Bingcang, Mansueto Jamero and Julian Pabicon,
which is contrary to his testi
mony during the preliminary investigation that while he
saw Joel Bingcang driving the said jeep with Mansueto Ja
mere seated beside him,
he did not recognize the other fel
low at the back seat because of the presence of
plants and a box inside the vehicle.
Further, appellants would also assail the veracity of prosecution witness Juan de la
Pea, not only because he admitted during the trial that he had been always
present during the previous hearings of the case, but also for the reason that his
testimony contradicts the other evidence on hand. Thus, it is pointed out: that
while de la Pea claimed that he was not present in court when Retirado testified,
and that it was Torres who was at the witness stand when he was present, the
record shows that Torres testified only in rebuttal - long after de la Pena had
testified; that while de la Pena had declared that when Atty. Piccio inquired from him
where Sgt. de la Pena was, he gave the information that "he could be found farther
down the road", Retirado on the other hand, declared that the answer given by de
la Pea then was to the effect that he did not know where Sgt. de la Pena was at
the time; that while de la Pena claimed to have seen Retirado rid
ing the jeep of
Atty. Piccio in the back seat that late afternoon of July 19, 1958, Retirado's
testimony was to the effect that he was seated not in the back seat but at the
right side behind Jamero who was seated in the front seat beside Atty. Piccio; that
according to de la Pea what Piccio was wearing at the time of the killing was
"similar to a barong", contrary to the testimony of Re
t irado that the victim was
then wearing a "jacket"; and that while de la Pea said the rear of the Piccio jeep
was open with a loose flap, Retirado, on the other hand, declared that the rear
portion of the said jeep had a permanent covering at the back.
We have carefully examined all the foregoing al
leged contradictions and
inconsistencies in the testimo
nies of Retirado, Fabros, Gepana and de la Pea.
Appel
lants have presented them in such a detailed manner and discussed them at
length in their brief, that We had to read the voluminous record of the case with
painstaking solicitude in our sincere desire to see if they are such as to affect the
credibility of said witnesses. By and large, however, We find their testimonies
reasonably cre
dible. Aside from the fact that a good number of the alleged
discrepancies were satisfactorily explained by said witnesses during the trial, We
have also come to the conclusion, after our own examination of their respective
declarations, both at the trial and during the preliminary investigation, that the
alleged contradictions and inconsistencies pointed out by herein appellants as
above set forth, refer merely to minor details in their testimonies which do not
destroy the credibility and value of the main points they have testified to. Such
inconsistencies on minor points are clearly the result of the imperfections of the
human memory, for it is quite impossible for witnesses to remember and recall all
the minor details of an occurrence long past. Contradictions on minor details on
account of lapse of time, far from being evidence of false
hood, constitute a
demonstration of good faith and a con
firmation of the truth of the parties
34/43
2/23/13
participation. We note that the state witness, Inocencio Retirado, testified at

various occasions during the long trial of this case with no brief period intervening
in between. On those occasions, he was subjected to long and searching crossexaminations by the brilliant lawyers of the defense. So much so, that at one
instance, Retirado obviously became groggy; but his good faith and sincerity was
clearly evident from the fact that he withstood the ordeal without any apparent sign
that he was lying. Retirado did not mention, except on one occasion, the presence
of Fabros in the meetings held in his presence, but it appears that there were really
several meetings held before the killing actually took place, and, incidentally,
Retirado was not present in the few meetings that Fabros witnessed. Such fact
alone, however, does not justify a conclusion that their testimonies should be
disregarded altogether. The same way may be said about the testimonies of the
other witnesses as against whom We find nothing in the record to show that they
might have had any motive to testify falsely against herein appellants. The trial
court had given the testimonies of these witnesses full faith and credence, and We
are satisfied, after our own review of their respective testimonies, that the said
court did not err in giving weight to their declarations. Suffice it to say, in this
connection, that the matter of assigning values to declarations at the witness stand
is best and most competently performed by a trial judge who, unlike appellate
magistrates, can weigh such testimony in the light of the declarants demeanor,
conduct and attitude at the trial and is thereby placed in a more competent position
to discriminate between the true and the false; and We really find no the cogent
reason to disturb the conclusion of the court below as far as the credibility and
veracity of these witnesses are concerned.
As regards the testimony of Teodulo Galo appellants merely contend that the
incidents mentioned by this wit
ness for the prosecution are too remote in time to
constitute motives for the killing of Ernesto Piccio, pointing out that the incidents
referred to took place more than two years before the death of the victim. It is,
there
fore, alleged that the lower court should not have given reliance upon his
testimony out of proportion to its true worth. We are not impressed with this
argument either. The incidents testified to by this witness were, of course, long
past. But they appear to be sufficient reasons, when viewed in the light of other
circumstances testified to by other witnesses, for the killing of the victim. At any
rate, proof of motive is not even necessary here, where there is no doubt that
herein appellants have caused the death of the victim.8
But it is claimed that insofar as appellant Joel Bingcang is concerned, the evidence
does not warrant his convictions pointing out the fact that the only evidence of his
participation were those testified to by witnesses Inocencio Retirado and Arsenio
Gepana which may be summed up as follows that according to Retirado, about ten
mi
nutes after the start of the meeting in the morning of July 19, 1958, Joel
Bingcang arrived and told appellant Rudy Lopez: "I was sent here by my employer";
that after some 4 to 5 minutes conversation between Bingcang and Lopez which
Retirado did not hear because they retired to a place in the house a little farther
away from the rest of the group in that meeting, Joel Bingcang started to leave,
35/43
2/23/13
say
ing: "I'm leaving now, I'm going to wait in that place at Tinampaan"; that later
Bingcang appeared from behind a big tree by the roadside at Tinampaan in the
evening of July 19, 1958, as soon as Atty. Ernesto Piccio had stop
ped his jeep near
the tree at the behest of appellant Mansueto Jamero who said he wanted to
urinate; that a con
versation then ensued between Bingcang and Atty. Piccio; and
that it was at that precise moment when appellant Ju
lian Pabicon struck at the head
of Atty. Piccio from be
hind with the jack, after which appellant Jamero stabbed the
victim several times. Arsenio Gepana's testimony, on the other hand, was to the
effect that in the same evening of July 19, 1958, he saw Joel Bingcang driving Piccio
jeep down the bridge at Lagasan with appellants Jamero and Pabicon as
passengers; and that at the crossing nearby, he saw them turn left towards
Pandanan. From these testimo
nies, appellants argue that nowhere did Retirado
even tes
t ify that Joel Bingcang ever touched or pinched the vic
t im and should,
therefore, had been acquitted by the trial court.
The claim should be denied. While there is no direct evidence showing that
appellant Bingcang participated in the actual killing of the victim, the above
circumstantial evidence shows beyond doubt that he was a party to the plot to kill
Atty. Piccio in the evening of July 19, 1958. His promise to wait at the place in
Tinampaan where the crime was committed; his subsequent appearance thereat
when the Piccio jeep stopped at the place, in pursuance of that promise; his act of
engaging the victim in conversation then and there which gave a chance to
appellants Pabicon and Jamero to strike at the victim while the attention of the
latter was distracted; and the circumstance that he was seen driving the victim's
jeep with the principal actors in the killing (Jamero and Pabicon) as passengers
imme
diately after the incident, show beyond a cavil of doubt that herein appellant
Joel Bingcang was in the conspiracy to eliminate Atty. Ernesto Piccio; and he cannot
now exculpate himself from liability by showing that he never laid a hand upon the
victim at the time of the killing. It is fundamental that in a conspiracy, the act of
one is the act of the others, and all shall be liable for the crime committed.
Appellant Joel Bingcang would maintain, however, that at the precise time that Atty.
Piccio was allegedly killed at Tinampaan, Cadiz, Negros Occidental, he was in jail at
Ajuy, Iloilo, wherefrom he was released only at about 8:00 o'clock in the evening of
that day.
Consider
ing the distance between the two places, it is, therefore,
suggested that he could not have been present and seen at the place of the killing
in Negros Occidental that very same evening, at about the same time. Let us recall
some of the testimony which has already been set forth above, and examine the
strength of this alibi.
It appears that in addition to his uncorroborated testimony in court regarding his
alleged confinement in the municipal jail of Ajuy, Iloilo, from 11:00 or 12:00 o'clock
in the morning to 8:00 or 10:00 o'clock in the evening of July 19, 1958, appellant
Joel Bingcang also identified a document and the signature thereon of the Chief of
Police of Ajuy who issued the same. This was accordingly marked as Exhibit 3Bingcang. For convenience and ready reference, We shall herein set forth the full
36/43
2/23/13
text of that exhibit:

"REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
PROVINCE OF ILOILO
MUNICIPALITY OF AJUY
- oOffice of the Chief of Police
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This is to certify that on July 19, 1958, at or about 11:00 o'clock in the morning
Joel Bingcang and Conrado Anigan were arrested and, lod
ged in jail;
That Joel Bingcang and Conrado Anigan were released from jail at a
bout 8:00
o'clock in the evening of the same day.
Ajuy, Iloilo, January 20, 1960.
(Sgd)
SIMON
SANTOYO
Chief
of
Police
Ajuy,
Iloilo"
At the close of Joel Bingcang testimony, counsel for appellants Lopez, Jamero and
Pabicon made the following manifestation: "If your Honor, please, on behalf of the
accused Lopez, Jamero and Pabicon would like to make it of record that we are
adopting as our own the evidence presented by the accused Joel Bingcang, but we
would like to make a reservation to produce later on photostatic copies of the
entries of the blotter in the municipality of Ajuy corresponding to Exhibit 3Bingcang." When the de
fense made its offer of evidence later, the said photos
t atic
copy of the Police Blotter of Ajuy, Iloilo for July 19, 1958 (Exhibit 4-Bingcang) was
submitted and ad
mitted by the trial court, over the objection of the pro
s ecution on
the ground that it was not duly identified. This exhibit, as earlier set forth, bears
the following entries, among others:
"At or about 11:00 a.m. July 19, 1958, Joel Bingcang and Conrado Ani
gan were arrested and lodged in jail for fighting each other by Sgt. Luis
Celis.
x
x
37/43
2/23/13
"At about 8:00 p.m. 19 July 1958, Joel Bingcang and Conrado Anigan
were released."
On the dorsal side of the document (exhibit 4-Bing
cang) is a handwritten
certification which reads:
"At the request of Atty. Al
berto M. K. Jamir, I cause the photostat of all
the entries in the Police Blotter of the Municipality of Ajuy, Province of
Iloilo, on July 19, 1958, to be taken. This photostat was taken under
my direct
ion; I have compared it with the original appearing on the said
blot
t er and I have found it to be an exact and correct reproduction
thereof. The said blotter is under my custody and control.
"Done at Ajuy, Iloilo, this 2nd day of November, 1960.
s/
SANTOYO
SIMON
w/
SANTOYO
SIMON
Chief of
Police
Ajuy,
Iloilo"
After an examination of these documents, the question may be asked: What is the
probative weight or value of these exhibits? There should be no question that
Exhibit 3-Bingcang is not the certified copy of a public or official record spoken of in
the law of evidence. If a mere certificate of the clerk or other custodian of a paper,
as to the substance, contents, or legal effect of the docu
ment or as to the fact
that the paper attached is an abs
t ract or summary of the original is not admissible,
being purely hearsay, because the power of the officer is limited to a certification
that the paper is a true copy of another writing,9 then with more reason that
Exhibit 3-Bingcang is not admissible for the said exhibit in itself does not show that
the same was made with the aid of any memoran
dum or record. Definitely,
therefore, Exhibit 3-Bingcang cannot have an probative weight. The same may be
said of Exhibit 4-Bingcang. While the same purports to be a cer
t ified copy of the
police blotter of Ajuy, Iloilo, there is showing that the same was properly identified
during the trial, and the objection of the prosecution to the admissibility of the
document on that at ground should have been sustained. Where the law permits
the use of a certified copy, it is incumbent upon the proponent to establish by
competent proof that the paper offered by him is indeed the cer
t ified copy allowed
by the law. This is explained by a well-known authority on the law of evidence as
follows, by way of example:
"Let it be settled that a custodian's certified copy is admissible and let the public
38/43
2/23/13
document whose contents are to be proved be an order of survey by the court

commissioners of highways and let a paper be offered purporting to be a certified
copy, the county clerk, of the original warrant lawfully in his custody. Here it still
remains to be ascertain
ed that the count clerk is in fact the lawful custodian of that
class of documents, that the person J.S. is in fact the county and that the
signature J.3. was in truth placed there by, the genuine J.S. (or if there is a seal,
that the seal was genuinely his seal placed there by him)."10
Here, by the doctrine of judicial notice, the law fixing the custody of public records
need not be evidenced; so with the incumbency of principal public officers as
custodian of said records, which would probably include the case of the chief of
police of a municipality. But when, as in this case, the document presented does
not bear the seal of the office where it originated, the genuineness of the signature
of the custodian cannot be pre
s umed. There must be some proof that the
signature appearing on the document is that of the official legally autho
rized to
issue the same. Herein appellants appear to have failed in this regard, for the
alleged signature of the Chief of Police of Ajuy, Iloilo, appearing on the certifi
cation
on the dorsal side of exhibit 4-Bingcang, was never identified by anybody during
the trial of the case. The prosecution was, therefore, right in objecting to the ad
missibility of said exhibit on that ground. There is, of course, the signature of the
same official on Exhibit 3- Bingcang which was previously identified by appellant
Bingcang himself; but the trial court had observed that the two signatures on the
two documents were apparently made by different hands, which observation, We
believe, coupled with the circumstance that the signature on one of them, was not
properly identified, is not without rea
s onable basis. Hence, We have to declare
that, in effect, the trial court did not err in refusing to give any pro
bative weight to
the said exhibit, although not on the ground of inadmissibility, but upon the
suspicion that the same was "spurious". Moreover, alibi cannot be entertained
when as in this case, the identification of the accused as one of the persons seen
at the place or near the scene of the crime has been established by worthy
witness
es. This is more so when there is nothing in the record to show any motive
why the prosecution witnesses would impute to appellant the commission of so
grave a wrong as the one imputed to him.11
Appellants argue further that the lower court erred in convicting Mansueto Jamero
and Julian Pabicon. It is noted, however, that the main ground relied upon by
herein appellants in support of this proposition also hinges on their claim that the
witnesses for the prosecution who had testified against them are not reliable, that
is why they still insist that their guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable
doubt. Having arrived earlier at the conclusion that the alleged inconsistencies and
contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses alluded to did not
affect their veracity, We may now dispose of this argument without any lengthy
discussion. For indeed, in the light of positive identification by witnesses, de la
Pea and Gepana, of the presence of Jamero and Pabicon inside the Piccio jeep in
the evening of July 19, 1958, coupled with the testimony of state witness Retirado
that Jamero and Pabicon were the ones who actually took part in the killing of Atty.
39/43
2/23/13
Piccio inside the said vehicle that evening, the evidence is sufficient to establish their
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
We agree, of course, with the claim of herein appel
lants that there is ample
evidence for the defense tending to show that Jamero and Pabicon were in Manila
with other provincial guards of Negros Occidental during the period from July 17 to
23, 1958; but these alibis of appellants Jamero and Pabicon are not air-tight and do
not rule out nor overturn entirely the positive evidence for the prosecution that
they were seen at and/or near the scene of the crime in Negros on the 19th and
20th of July, 1958, as testified to by prosecution witnesses. Ino
cencio Retirado,
Arsenio Cepana, Juan de la Pea and Emi
lio Loga. Witnesses for the defense,
including herein appellants, maintain that Jamero and Pabicon never return
ed to
Negros on the day of the killing of Ernesto Piccio, and in further support of their
claim, appellants have presented in evidence, the PAL Passengers Manifest for July
19, 1958, tending to show that Jamero and Pabicon did not return to Negros thru
the PAL flight that left Manila for Bacolod City at 2:45 p.m. of that day. This is not
conclusive proof, however, that it was impossible for them to have left Manila and
return to Negros at anytime within the period of their sojourn in Manila, for there is
evidence showing that at the time, there were two daily PAL flights from Manila to
Bacolod City, one in the morn and one in the afternoon. The whereabouts of
Jamero and Pabicon on July 19, 1958, had been testified to by a host of witnesses
for the defense, but We are more inclined to believe that they were mistaken in
their recol
lection of the presence of these appellants, in Manila on said date, as it
appears that the party in Sta. Mesa, Manila, they claimed to have attended in the
evening of that day was held on the 20th of that month and not on the 19th as
claimed by them. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of Amado Torres,
a policeman of Baco
lod City, to the effect that he met appellant Jamero and
Pabicon, along with other provincial guards of Negros Occidental near the Dencia
Restaurant about midnight of July 20, 1958, a Sunday, and not on the 19th as
alleged by herein appellants who maintain that they met the said policeman shortly
after their return to their boarding house from the party in Sta. Mesa; and this is
confirmed by the testimony of Mrs. Narcisa Vilches, a witness for the defense, who
admitted during the trial that she had previously made a statement at Camp Crame
where she stated chat the party in Sta. Mesa, Manila, in honor of her nep
hew, and
attended by appellants Jamero and Pabicon, was held on July 20, 1958. The
testimony of Mrs. Vilches in court, that she saw Jamero and Pabicon on July 19,
1958, also appears to be unreliable, as the same had been dis
credited by the
statement she appears to have previously made at Camp Crame to the effect that
she did not remember having seen Jamero and Pabicon at her boarding house on
the said date, although she tried to explain during the trial that she only consented
to the placing of such state
ment in her affidavit upon the suggestion of Capt. Yap
diangco of the CIS. There is also the testimony of former Governor Valeriano
Gatuslao to reckon with, for the old man had testified that he saw Pabicon in the
morning, and Jamero in the afternoon of July 19, 1958, in the house of his brother
in Quezon City. But it is not unlikely that the Governor had mistaken other
persons for Jamero and Pabicon, considering that he appears to have about 10 or
40/43
2/23/13
lore visitors in the said house on that day. The witness

es for the prosecution had
good reasons to remember the night of July 19, 1958 - Retirado was a party to the
crime, he could not have been mistaken; Patrolman de la Pea was investigated by
the barely five days after the killing; While Gepana was called by the CIS agents
some twenty days after the death of Ernesto Piccio, or on August 9, 1958 to be
precise witnesses for the defense, on the other hand, have little or no reason at all
to have that date etched in their minds, unless they were really parties to the
crime, and it is more probable that they could have been mistaken as to the dates
mentioned. With these in mind then, We are more inclined to disregard the claim
of appellants that Jamero and Pabicon were in Manila on July 19, 1958, and could
not have been at the scene of the killing of Atty. Piccio at Tinampaan, Cadiz, Negros
Occi
dental on the same day. No jurisprudence in criminal cases is more settled
than the rule that alibi is the weakest all defenses, and that the same should be
rejected when the identity of the accused has been sufficiently and positively
established by eyewitnesses to the crime. For it to pros
per, it is not enough to
prove that defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but
must, likewise, de
monstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been
at the scene of the crime at the time.12 Obviously the alibis of appellants Jamero
and Pabicon do not meet this standard.
Regarding the conviction of Rodrigo Honorio Lopez, We do not find it necessary to
dwell on the various points discussed in appellants brief seeking to overturn the
finding of the court below, relative to his guilt. Our own examination of the
evidence revealed that he had the great
est motive to eliminate the victim of the
crime. He was the prime mover in the killing of Atty. Ernesto Piccio. There is
abundant, evidence that he was present in the va
rious meetings held for the
purpose of plotting and kill
ing; that it was he who gave the final instructions to the
participants in the actual killing; and that he was in the car that followed the Piccio
jeep in the afternoon of July 19, 1958 and gave the go signal for committing the
crime later in the evening with the lights of the said car. He did not participate in
the actual killing of the victim, but he is, no doubt, a principal by induction, and the
acts of his co-conspirators in the actual killing were equally his.
Finally, We find the charge of herein appellants that they were convicted by the
court below simply because "their counsel refused to worship at the shrine of the
trial judge", to be quite unfair. We note that the trial judge, perhaps in his
zealousness to dispose of the case with dispatch, had engaged the defense
counsels in several lengthily discussions respecting questions of procedure,
admissibility of evidence, propriety of the questions asked and related matters. But
after We have read the whole record of the case and passed upon the various
portions there wherein the said discussions were had, We find that the trial judge
displayed no signs of resentment either in the course of, or after the lengthily
discussions. And We can
not subscribe to the insinuation that the trial court had
convicted herein appellants only because the presiding judge was "peeved" and
"annoyed" by the various discussion aforementioned. Suffice it to say, that apart
from the incidents alluded to above, all the accused in this, case may trully be said
41/43
2/23/13
to have had their day in court, and We find nothing in the record to sustain any
belief that said discussions, in one way or another, hampered or prevented defense
in ventilating its cause. And above all else, we find sufficient evidence to sustain
the conviction of herein appellants.
Whatever comment We would now make on the acquittal of the other accused
in this case, would surely be un
called for, for which reason We find it unnecessary
to discuss the charge that the court below had used an uneven hand in handing
down the decision appealed from.
Finding the judgment to be in accord with the law the evidence, the same should be
affirmed; but for lack of the required number of votes, the death penalty cannot be
imposed.
WHEREFORE, the death sentence imposed upon herein appellants by the lower
court is hereby reduced to life imprisonment. No costs.
Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, and Fernando, JJ.,
concur.
Concepcion, C.J, in the result.
[1 ]
Moore vs. State, 67 So. 789.
[2 ]
54 CJS 935.
[3 ]
Ibid.
[4 ]
People v. De Leon, et al., L-13384, June 30, 1960, and cases therein cited.
People v. Castaeda, 63 Phil. 480; People v. Ibali, L-3386-87, May 18, 1951, 88
Phil 724.
[5 ]
See U.S. v. Abanzado, 37 Phil. 658; U.S. v. Alabot, 38 Phil. 698; People v.
Bacsa, 55 Of. Gaz. 797; People v. Manigbas, L-10352-53, Sept. 30, 1960.
[6 ]
See People vs. McMann, 4 Phil; 661; People vs. Estrada, L-26103, January 17,
1968.
9
See, 20 Am. Jur. 877.
10
11
5 Wigmore sec. 1679.

People v. Teorino, L-18767, 18789-90, May 30, 1964; People v. Mesias, L-
42/43
2/23/13
19250, August 30, 1963.

12
See People v. Estrada, L-26103, January 17, 1968, and cases therein cited.
Source : Supre m e C ourt E-Library

This page was dynam ically ge ne rate d
by the E-Library C onte nt Manage m e nt Syste m (E-LibC MS)
43/43

(GR) People V Jamero (1968) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(GR) People V Jamero (1968) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/23/13

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

[ G.R. No. L-19852, July 29, 1968 ]

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

"II. POSTMORTEM FINDINGS:

Stab wound, measuring 1.8 cm. on the inner canthus of the

A stab wound, 1.7 cm. in length on the lower palpebral folds of

A stab wound, 3 cm. in length run

A small stab wound, 0.7 cm. invol

A stab wound, 1.6 cm. in length on the left lower temporal

A stab wound, 1.7 cm. in length, on the lower temporal region

A stab wound, on the interior

aspect of the right shoulder ver

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

A slight subaponeurotic contusion about 4 x 5 cm. on the

Subdural and meaningeal hemorrhage over an area about 3 x 6

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

accused Mansueto Jamero re

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

house at 1620 Kansas Avenue, Manila.

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

The said certificate was marked as Ex

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

at he train his fight

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

"Hence, the following accused namely: JESUS VASQUEZ, FLORENTINO

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

them during the trial.

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

participation. We note that the state witness, Inocencio Retirado, testified at

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

text of that exhibit:

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly

document whose contents are to be proved be an order of survey by the court

E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly